american atheist magazine april 1985

8/9/2019 American Atheist Magazine April 1985

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/american-atheist-magazine-april-1985 1/44



******* •••• * ••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••

AMERICAN ATHEISTS

is a non-profit, non-political, educational orjanization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of

state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the First Amendment to the

Constitution of the United States was meant to create a wall of separation between state and church.

American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning

religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;

to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough

understanding of them, their origins and histories;

to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual

sympathy, understanding and interdependence of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each

individual in relation to society;

to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of

strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;

to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance,

perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;

to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to

members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.

Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and

aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,

independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.

Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own

inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man -

finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his

dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve

it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's faith is in

man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very

essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble

ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an

outreach to more fulfilling cultural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited .

••••• •••••••••••••••• • • • •• •• •• • • • •• •• •• •• •• •• •• • ••

American Atheist Membership Categories

Life membership S500.00

Sustaining membership S100.00/year

Family/Couple membership S50.00/year

Individual membership S40.00/year

Senior Citizen/Unemployed* membership S20.00/year

Student membership* S12.00/year

*I.D. required

All membership categories receive our monthly Insider's Newsletter, membership card(s), a

subscription to American Atheist magazine for the duration of the membership period, plus additional

organizational mailings, i.e. new products for sale, convention and meeting announcements, etc.

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



April,1985

Vol. 27, No.4

m e r i c a n t h e i s t

Journal of Atheist News and Thought

Editorial: Atheists and Death - Jon Murray

2

Ask A.A.

5

News and Comments: Political Pandering

6

Another Sade - Maurice LaBelle

Coming Out of The Closet - Lowell Newby

4

Mr. Righteous' Neighborhood - Mark Fara 5

Survey: Perspectives 9

Immorality and Christianity - Robert H. Countess

23

What Is Death? - Frank R. Zindler

24

Virtue Restored - Margaret Bhatty

29

Dial-An-Atheist

3

Historical Notes 3

Z.P.G. and Religion - Madalyn O'Hair

32

Poetry

34

Here Come De Judge - Gerald Tholen

35

Book Review

37

Letters to The Editor

38

Classified Advertisement

4

Reader Service

4

On The Cover:

This issue of the American Atheist magazine contains the completed report of the findings complied from our 1984 Atheist

member/reader survey. The March '85 issue contained a demographic report concerning the age, sex, geographical disposition, etc., etc., of the

American Atheist community and it, most likely, will become an historic guide for future sociologists. The American Atheist Center has already, at this

early subsequent date, received inquiries from the media in this regard. This month's report, Perspectives ( p. 19), relates to you the likes and/or dislikes of

the average American Atheist in regard to our organizational policies, publications, and efforts. As would be expected, we received numerous

suggestions, some of which have been previously tried - sometimes successfully but more ofter with disappointment. On the positive side, however,

other suggestions will p robably prove very helpful to our future efforts. All in all, we at the Center are finding that this survey report is, and will increasingly

be, a very important tool for all Atheists and related Atheist social studies as time goes on. As with any journal, the American

Atheist

must first be

informative. Secondly, it should be entertaining. To meet these requirements we try to include a number of light-hearted essays, cartoons, and

illustrations, so that we can all smile together - on occasion. Unfortunately, some of the cold fact articles - those reporting the sobering side of

world/American religio-politicism, tend to make it necessary that we cry together as well. But, laughing or crying, one thing is becoming obvious

-Atheists, for the first time in history, are finding unity

G.Tholen

Editor/Robin Murray-O'Hair, Editor Emeritus/Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Manag-

TheAmerican Atheist magazine is published monthly by the American Atheist Press

(an affiliate of American Atheists), 2210 Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78768-2596, and a

ing Editor/don G. Murray, Assistant Editor/Gerald Tholen,Poetry/Angeline

non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and

Bennett, Gerald Tholen, Production Staff/Bill Kight, Gloria Tholen, Sandra M.P.

absolute separation ofstate and church. (Allrights reserved. Reproduction in whole

McGann, Douglas A. Barnes Non-Resident/G. Stanley Brown, Jeff Frankel, Merrill

Holste, Margaret Bhattv, Fred Woodworth, Frank R. Zindler.

or in part without written permission is prohibited). Mailing address: PO Box

2117/Austin, TX 78768·2117.Subscription is provided as an incident ofmembership

The American Atheist magazine

in t he organization ofAmerican Atheists. Subscriptions alone are available at $25.00

is indexed in

for one year terms oi .lv . (Frequency monthly. Library and institutional discount:

Monthly Periodical Index

50%.) Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a

ISSN: 0332-4310

stamped, self-addressed envelope. A copy of American Atheist Magazine Writers

copyright 1984 by Society ofSeparationists, Inc.

Guidelines is available on request. The editors assume no responsibility for

unsolicited manuscripts.

ARE YOU MOVING?

Please us notify six weeks in advance to ensure uninterrupted delivery. Send us both your old and new addresses. If possible, attach

old

label from a recent magazine in the bottom space provided.

NEW ADDRESS:

(Please print)

OLD ADDRESS:

(please print)

Name

Name

Address

Address

City

City

State

Zip

State

zip

Mail to - American Atheists, PO Box 2117, Austin,

rx

78768-2117

Austin, Texas

April,1985

Page 1



EDITORIAL/Jon G Murray

ATHEISTS AND DEATH

A

s the Director of The American Atheist

. Center, I receive countless clippings

fromvarious hard media sources inthe mails

addressed to myattention daily.I try to read

as many of them as time permits so that I

may keep abreast of the goings on in the

fieldof separation of state and church inthe

world as well as to keep up with what the

religious zanies are doing invarious parts of

our country. It has come to my attention

that during the second term of the king for

a day enthronement of our chief executive

that there has been an increase injournalis-

tic attacks on Atheism through the use of

observations of the Soviet Union. I am

becoming rather sick at my stomach about

these repeated and increasingly more point-

ed attacks on Atheism as a lifestyle -

particularly inthe editorial sections ofvarious

periodicals as one so-called journalist after

another takes off on some hard news event

coverage concerning the Soviet Union to

deride the Atheist scum both abroad and,

by implication, here in the good old U.S.A.

I regard most of these writers as intellec-

tual wimps. They are so emotionally spine-

less that they must have their god, to blow

them up as a puffer fish blows itself up to

ward off a predator, in order to withstand

any of life'sminor rigors. Ifyou were to take

their belief systems from them they would

be intellectually flaccid and pathetic, need-

ing help to just find themselves in the

morning while looking square in the mirror.

Over and over again, I am reminded that

those who despise the Atheist most are

those who can cope with the ups and downs

of lifethe least. They hate us because we are

happy and because we are livingproof that

anyone can walk tall and proud, handling

what life has to offer along the way with no

need of the crutch of religion. We Atheists

don't need to be told once a week that it is

O.K. for us to be complete and total failures

at lifeas long as we believe because we can

then succeed and be happy after death.

Whenever you can cope with any particu-

lar situation better than others, they get

jealous and hostile and begin to despise you.

The jealousy increases dramatically when

you can cope with life, in general, at every

juncture, better than they. Then they really

get steamed. I think that the time has come

for Atheists to start exposing these malin-

gers of reason for the mental jellyfish that

they are.

Page 2

One of the worst attacks of recent times,

of which I have become aware, debuted

recently in the Washington Post and was

then picked up by the wire services for

national distribution. It was entitled The

Case against Atheism and was authored by

one Charles Krauthammer who was iden-

tified as .. senior editor of the magazine,

New Repo. .Iblic. Mr. Krauthammer took the

recent occation of Soviet Premier Cher-

nenko's funeral which was carried on nation-

wide television here inthe U. [ , as were two

previous funerals of heads of state recently

required in the Soviet Union. Keeping in

mind that extensive coverage ofSoviet state

funerals has the primary media goal of

allowing our masses to gloat over the

demise of a dirty Communistic Atheist

leader, it isnot hard to answer the question

of why a journalist would be so low as to use

a tragic event of the Soviets as a vehicle for

ridicule of an entire socio-cultural polito-

economic system.

Since the wire services, naturally, saw fit

to give national distribution to an attack on

Atheism, Ithink that itrequires that specific

commentary on some of the particular

points be made in the editorial of the Jour-

nal of Atheist News and Thought. It is

curious, as an aside, how the national press

always picks up anything that may even be

slightly derogatory concerning Atheism or

Atheists to spread itfar and wide while your

American Atheist Center, on the other

hand, has a terrible struggle to get any of its

frequent press releases picked up even

locally. It shows us where we stand in this

free nation of ours, but that could be the

subject of another editorial altogether.

Let me now turn to a point by point

examination of Mr. Krauthammer's Case

against Atheism. He starts out in a first

paragraph by saying that inmodern times he

need not bother with the classic philosophi-

cal proofs for god. All we really need to do

to make a case against Atheism isto watch a

Soviet funeral. Now this is an interesting

statement. The classic philosophical proofs

for god (of which there are seven) have been

refuted and shown to be absurd by a series

of materialist philosophers. None of the

classic proofs for god can stand up in front

of a child, so I was happy to see the author

abandon them all in this first paragraph.

Krauthammer goes on then to list the

specific parts of the Soviet state funeral

April,1985

which disgusted him. He says first of allthat

the use of Chopin's funeral march he can

stand (which is damned decent of him) but

that he cannot stand . . . the massive,

stone-cold setting. The Lenin Mausoleum,

the focus of ceremonies, is a model o

socialist brutalist architecture. This is the

first time that I had ever heard of architec-

ture as being brutal. Buildings are build

ings, and certainly mausoleums are usually

dour structures by virtue of what they

house. Ihave never been ina gay and cheery

cemetery or mausoleum. In fact, I have

never been in a mausoleum that was not

stone-cold being that most of them are

made of massive stone of one kind or

another, have a certain stale odor, have no

windows, and don't require heating, at least

not by the demand of the occupants. Would

the author have the Soviets paint daisies al

over the outside of Lenin's mausoleum to

make it look happier'? If you have ever

visited any of the tombs of our national

heroes they are not exactly the kind of place

inor around which one would want to have a

birthday party. But Krauthammer goes on

to say that The Lenin Mausoleum has

nothing to compare man to but its own

squat vastness. Ican't believe that even the

height of a national memorial in the Soviet

Union can be used against its people. This is

in distinction, naturally, to the grandeur of

the cathedrals of the Christian West that

remind us of the smallness of man in the

presence of god, as the author points out.

To my mind having a burial place of gran-

duer isabout as useful as printing flowers on

toilet paper, considering what you do with i

- why bother? In a culture where death is

considered the only doorway to happiness

in another life I guess a burial place should

be grand and a funeral a happy occasion.

We as Atheists know, however, that death is

final and that it is also a part of the natural

cycle. We need not show either phony grief

or exuberance. We simply acknowledge

death for what it is - the termination of an

individual biological unit. It is only that and

nothing more.

The columnist moves on to say that the

speeches at Chernenko's funeral were noth-

ing but party rhetoric. Have you listened to

the funeral speakers at the occasion of the

death ofany ofour leaders? Itisalways fullof

party rhetoric of what a great leader of men

the deceased was regardless of the actual

American Atheist



circumstances of his reign. As an Atheist, I

don't like it that the Soviets practice such

public hypocrisy on state occasions any

more than Ilike to have the same take place

here at home. I feel that at the time of

anyone's death there should be an acknowl-

edgement 'of what they were in life. If they

were unkind, inconsiderate, mean, disreput-

able schmucks, they should be referred to

as such. Those who knew them personally

should not be afraid of saying that they are

glad that they are dead. Personally, I cele-

brated when the Lord called home Cardinal

Spellman. Iadmired Foreign Minister Gromy-

ko for the fact that he did not attend the

Chernenko funeral alongside his Politburo

peers because he simply did not like nor did

he get along with Chernenko while he was

alive. That is a more honest and admirable

position than being part of the eulogy of

someone whom you do not respect in life

but participate in a service as a symbolic

gesture of support for the system. Kraut-

hammer isappalled by the utter effacement

of the person by the party ... in the Soviet

eulogy and quotes Vladimir Posner who

recently said in a reply to a question on

Chernenko's health, In this country the

private lives of the leadership ... are not

subject to discussion.

Posner is absolutely correct. Actually,

this is a rule ofthumb inalmost every nation.

A national leader, such as a premier or a

president, is primarily a figurehead and

secondarily a true trendsetter in policy

matters. When the chairman ofa party dies,

and that is all that our president is, you

simply appoint a new one. The country does

not collapse when a leader dies. Things go

on, and the leader is simply forgotten as

someone else takes charge. I see no reason

for the intense personalization of leadership

that pretends in this country. Rank and file

voters have to know what Reagan had for

breakfast each day or offwhat color plate he

eats or who made Nancy's latest dress. All

of that is totally trivial and non-relevant. I

remember the attempted assassination of

Reagan and all of the next rank of leaders

running around like chickens with their

heads cut off screaming Who will run the

country that our leader has fallen? The

media even went along with this. Did anyone

think for a moment that our Constitution

was immediately void and that the country

would run amuck overnight with our lead-

er down for a couple of weeks? Perhaps

Alexander Haig did, but I was not worried

for a minute. The private lives of our lead-

ership should be their own. Only their public

lives are of consequence. I didn't care how

many times a day Nixon had to shave, but I

did care that he demonstrated himself to be

a petty criminal while occupying the highest

position of public trust in this country.

Posner's position is correct, and we should

stand corrected here with our messianic

treatment of our leadership. It only shows

Austin, Texas

that in the Soviet Union the people are truly

in control because the leadership can

change as it may but life goes on. Here a

change of leadership is an agonizing ordeal

because we know that we, the people, are

not incontrol and that wemust worry about

the personality of the next leader who may

truly make our lives harder through whim.

Ordinary rank and filepeople participate in

alllevels ofthe Soviet government, and they

know that they need not worry so much

about high level change; they are in control.

We are not, so we truly need to worry about

leadership changes.

Krauthammer then says that to me most

chilling, was the open casket displaying

Chernenko's (and Andropov's and Brezh-

nev's) powdered body drowning in a sea of

fresh flowers. The open bier is a mere

variation on a communist theme: the mum-

mification of the great leader. Had Kraut-

hammer never seen the nationally televised

burial of a Pope? The open bier with a

Pope's body rotting in the Italian heat for

days and days of useless religious ceremo-

nies while a paint brush fullofformaldehyde

is applied to the papal face to keep a nose or

a lip from falling off during the massive

prayers is much more chilling. In fact, I

find it rather disgusting. At least the Soviets

bury their dead rather quickly after death

and don't pickle them for a week and lay

them out to rise again. Chernenko, as

Brezhnev and Andropov were before him,

was laid out for those who did respect their

administration to show that respect, and

then he was planted in the Kremlin wall.

None ofthem were mummified. They willall

rot intheir respective holes inthe wall.As to

the preservation of Lenin's body in his

Mausoleum, had any ofour founding fathers

died when the technology was available to

preserve them as was done with Lenin, I am

certain that such an option would have been

considered. The columnist comments on

this by saying, In the great materialist

religions, Soviet and Chinese communism,

the resting place ofthe redeemer, indeed his

frozen body, becomes a shrine. Let us

remember that the purpose of erecting any

sort of monument to a fallen leader 5 to

acknowledge the contribution of that leader

to the society in which he or she existed -

the larger the contribution, real or fancied,

the larger the monument. I see no reason,

however, for that practice to continue. I

think that all persons' bodies should be

similarly des posed of after death in one

manner: cremation. I can't see using up

prime real etate to create one marble or-

chard after another. Simply burn them up

and scatter the ashes or use them as

compost. Monuments can be left behind

dedicated to the ideas that given individuals

espoused during their lifetimes that may

have been of particular uniqueness or value

to the society of a whole. Those ideas and

their impact on society are the things worth

April,1985

memorializing, not the individuals. As I

stood before Lenin's Mausoleum in Red

Square, I viewed it as a tribute to the

founding ideals of a nation, not as a tribute

to his individual personality.

Then comes the coup de grace of Kraut-

hammer's observations when he says But

what struck me most ... was the fact that

from start to finish there was not one

mention of - God. Did he truly expect the

Soviet Union to findgod, en masse, over the

death of Chernenko? It had not done so

over the death of Brezhnev or of Andropov.

The Christian mind, for some reason, likes

to seize on the moment of death to make its

best pitch for conversion purposes. This has

happened with the death of all public Athe-

ists of which I know. The word always

spreads likewildfire, before the body iscold,

that the Atheist converted to Christ on

his/her deathbed. No true Atheist ever

.turned to Christ at deathbed. I will leave

directions that my death be video-taped to

leave a permanent record of the fact that no

such conversion occurred. I would sug-

gest this to other Atheists as well. What did

the columnist find so shocking about the

lack of a reference to god in the Soviet

ceremony? He quotes G. K. Chesterton

(English essayist, critic, and novelist, 1874-

1936) as saying, The trouble when people

stop believing in God is not that they

thereafter believe in nothing; it is that they

thereafter believe in anything. Krautham-

mer then goes on to add, In this century

'anything' has included Hitler, Stalin, and

Mao, authors of the great genocidal mad-

nesses of our times. I would like to point

out that Hitler was a Christian (specifically a

Roman Catholic) and rose to power in a

decidedly Christian country with the sup-

port of the organized church and with

Concordats which he signed with the Pope.

Stalin, of course, was a product of Jesuit

training. The U.S.S.R., itself, was a very

religious (Eastern Orthodox) nation prior to

its revolution of 1917. Many very pious

Russians revolted against many ofthe same

abuses that spawned our own revolution.

One of the many causal factors in the revolt

was religion as related to separation ofstate

and church, which was also a factor in our

own revolution. Mao saw China through its

transition from a peasantry nation into a

modern superpower. Stalin led the U.S.S.R.

through its most difficult period, World War

II, in which it sustained great casualties than

allother nations inthat war combined. Stalin

and Mao are said to have authored geno-

cides, but they could never approach the

mass slaughter that the Judeo-Christian

religion caused throught the world in its

nineteen hundred years of dominance -

without even the excuse of attempting to

change the condition of the common man

which is the call for most modern revo-

lutions.

Krauthammer then says, Today the So-

Page 3



viet system, the greatest of all the failed

totalitarianisms, no longer believes in 'any-

thing.' It now believes innothing. A nothing

on eerie display at Wednesday's funeral. I

was not aware that the Soviet Union, as a

nation, had failed. It seems very much

alive and well to me. Why would the United

States be starting new negotiations in Ge-

neva with a power that has failed ? On the

contrary, the Soviets do believe in many

things that we would do well to start ac-

cepting as well: the value of not basing an

individual's net worth on his dollar value to

society, the value of not exploiting each

other in the narneof success or profit,

the value of being truly desirous of peace in

the world after having suffered the horrors

of a modern war in its own land - some-

thing that has never occurred in the United

States. The Soviets believe inpreserving the

health of their people, their most valuable

resource, regardless of the population's

ability to pay for the service, and the

Soviets could wellbe emulated by allnations

for the emphasis it places on education.

Krauthammer ends with this line, The

case against a public life bereft of all spir-

ituality rests less on its danger than on its

Percentage of Americans who believe

the Russians are our enemies because

they are Atheists: thirty seven.

from Harper's Index, Harper's Mag-

azine,

March, 1985, p. 19. Source:

Public Agenda Foundation (New York

City, NY.)

utter desolation. I can see where someone

watching a Moscow ceremony on television

could get the notion of desolation. Mos-

cow has cne of the world's worst climates,

year round. It is truly grey in Moscow

most of the time. The climatic conditions in

the Soviet Union land mass have been a

major inhibitor to its success inagricultural

endeavours. That climatic desolation does

not necessarily manifest itself in turn in the

countenances of the residents of that par-

ticular area of the world. In fact, a desolate

climate often serves to foster a determina-

tion and spirit that rises above the compla-

cency of

it

people who have it all.

I know that I will anger many readers of

this journal for my foregoing undeserved

sympathy for the people ofthe Soviet Union.

Many of you willnot like to see me stand up

against criticism of its system. I have this to

say to al my critics: I have consistently

taken the position that both the United

States and the Soviet Union have positive

and negative aspects in their respective

systems but that it should be up to allof us,

Americans and Russians alike, to get to-

gether and build a common world system

composed of the best ideas from both East

and West aimed at the goal of true human

happiness and the unleashing of fullhuman

potential worldwide. This is not a utopian or

unrealistic goal.

t

can be accomplished, but

not as longas we permit persons such as

M r.

Krauthammer to perpetuate the petty and

vindictive emotional appeals to narrow-

mindedness of which his editorial is so

typical. Matters of religion or spiritual val-

ues, or whatever you want to call them,

simply need to be swept from the social

It 's e a s ie r f o r a c am e l

t o e n t e r t h e e y e o f a

n ee d l e t h a n f o r a r i c h

m a n t o e n te r h ea v en .

Page 4 April,1985

consciousness so that we can all concen-

trate on the realities, through both joy and

hardship, of life.

As for death and funerals. Death is simply

a biological certainty. It is as everyday an

affair as is birth and should be treated as

such. We should not allow it to consume our

lives or to slow us down in the least. I can

hear many of you saying, He says that now

but wait until his mother, or any 'significant

other,' dies and he will change his tune.

Well, Ihope that some of you are around for

that day, for my mother and I have agreed

that Ishould sack her up in a plastic garbage

bag and haul her off to the crematorium.

There is nothing monstrous or heartless or

unfeeling about that at all. Ifyou admire and

respect someone it is up to you to show that

admiration, respect, and love (if any) while

he/she is alive instead of waiting to weep

hypocritically over the grave and what

might have been. Actual dignity inlifeisfar

more important than contrived dignity in

death. The Soviet funerals demons tate an

appreciation for the finality of death, and to

myway of thinking that is far better than any

funeral I have attended inthe United States

with caterwauling ministers faking a sup-

posed afterlife for the departed. I M P I

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A second generation Atheist,

Mr.Murray has been the Director of

the American Atheist Center for nine

years and is also the Managing Editor

of the American Atheist He advocates

Aggressive Athe ism.

S o - e m p w Y O U r

p oc ke t s i n to t h e

c o l le c ti o n b o x .

American Atheist



ASK A.A.

In

Letters

to

the Editor, readers

give

their

opinions, ideas,

and information.

But

in

Ask A.A. American Atheists

answers questions regarding its

poli-

cies, positions,

and

customs, as

well

as

queries

of factual and historical

situa-

tions.

The magazine mentions that Madalyn

O'Hair and other representatives of the

American Atheist movement make appear-

ances on various TV

&

radio stations a-

round the country. In the area where I live,

the newspapers and TVguides almost never

mention the talk show guests on TV sta-

tions, and they do not list the talk shows on

the radio at all. Ifthey mention any guests on

talk shows in the newspaper, it is for TV

only, and even then, only wellknown sports

figures, or TV actors. They totally ignore

controversial talk show guests, and won't

even mention them.

In the future, whenever possible, could

the

American Atheist

magazine, or the

Insider's

Newsletter, print a listing of TV

and radio stations (mention call letters,

station or dial number, time, day(s), title of

program,

etc.)

on which representatives of

the American Atheist movement appear -

if known in advance,

I first learned of the American Atheist

movement by pure accident when I turned

my channel selector on the TV to a talk

show many years ago. There was no listing

in the newspaper, or TV guide on who

would be the guest(s).

It was mentioned that there is a regular

American Atheist program on PBS radio.

Since the TV guides and newspaper in my

area never mention PBS radio, I have not

the slightest idea where that station is on the

dial in this area, or the times and days when

it is supposed to have talk shows.

Dan Chilinski

Ohio

You put your finger

on

the answer

to

your

query when you ask that notice

be

given if

known in advance.

The lead time

on

the magazine isthree

months and

on

the

Newsletter

about two

weeks. In addition both are mailed

to

you by

bulk mail which takes

two

days per zone

to

traverse the nation. Mail zones, for

American Atheists, are concentric enlarged

rings leading away from Central Texas.

From here

to

Ohio isfive zones. It takes ten

days for either the magazine

or

the

News-

letter to

get

to you.

To make such an announcement Ameri-

can Atheists would need

to

have informa-

tion approximately one

to

four months in

advance. But, just about every radio

or

T.V .

talk show

isa

spontaneous event. Usually a

talent coordinator of such a show calls the

Atheist Center and asks if someone at the

Austin, Texas

Center can take a pnoner

(a

radio talk

show completed entirely by long distance

telephone),

or

an actual body appearance

can

be

made

on a

particular. show. It

is

usually

all

over and done inseveral days,

at

most in a week. Your May magazine,

on

schedule, would

be

printed already inFebru-

ary. The magazines are placed in the mail

on

the 15th of the month before their cover

date. The April magazine, now in your

hands, was scheduled

to

leave Austin,

Texas,

on

March 15th.

The

Newsletter

is mailed, if possible,

on

the last day of the month before. Your April

issue was scheduled

to

leave Austin, Texas,

on

March 31st.

Simply, what you ask is not possible.

American Atheists does not actively solic-

it

such appearances. The request for an

appearance is almost always initiated by

the show which desires

a

guest. The

single exception

to

these rules is when

a

university appearance

is

scheduled. Here,

again, the university generally initiates the

request.

At

that time, the group sponsoring

the program and seeking the

guest

is asked

by American Atheists

to

seek out

as

many

media outlets

as

there are in the immediate

vicinityand arrange for appearances enough

to

saturate the area. When·

a

Chapter

is

being formed,

or

ifAmerican Atheist repre-

sentatives are for any reason

in a

Chapter

area, the same procedure

is

followed.

In such out-of-town appearances, the

person appearing flies out one day, stays

from one

to

three days

in

the area, then

returns. It

is

seldom that

a

week

is

involved.

No

advance mailinghas been possible in the

last twenty four years of such activity

because there has never been

a

sufficient

time interual in which

to

accomplish it.

There are many problems with

all

of

these talk shows. Perhaps the greatest of

all

is the censoring implicit

on

them. Gener-

ally, with Atheists, the game of bear bait-

ing

is

played. You may recall that

in

England

a

sport of the Middle Ages was

to

tie

a

bear

to a

sturdy pole

in

the center of

a

square. The more brave in the commun-

ity then came

to

poke sticks

or

throw rocks

at

the bear

to

harry it. Remaining

at a

distance which the bear could not traverse,

the bear, often with scant food

or

water

so

that his mood would

be

testier, was bait-

ed for endless hours.

One

must play the game.

No

one wants

a

clear discussion. What

is

wanted and need-

ed is

a

good show. If that is not given, the

guest

is

never asked

to

return.

Central

to all

of this

is

the point that never

dares

to be

forgotten. The primary

aim

of

both

radio

and television

is to

make

money -

not to

educate

or

inform. Too

many people forget that

as

they complain

mightily over the fare offered

to

their eye

on

their tube,

or to

their ear via radio.

April, 1985

The other consideration is that the host

of the show is there

to

display his personal-

ity, not

to be a

catalyst

to

precipitate out

from the

guest,

with his questions, the

fundamental principles

to be

discussed. The

host is rarely prepared beyond having his

makeup aplied, hair dressed, and clothing

groomed. This category includes many big

name hosts. Any information sent in ad-

vance is usually not read. Probably

no

host

has ever read any book which he

is

discussing with the author who appears

on

his program. There is

a

staff of persons

who listquestions which are

on

the prompt-

er, being read by the host. Usually, he

hasn't enough brains

to

get past saying

Good

evening and would fail completely

were it not for his prompts. The questions

are often off the top of the head of the

staff. The staff

is

most generally composed

of very young persons, usually recently

employed and with variable, and often

freighteningly, inadequate training. A stan-

dards criteria for questions has never been

demonstrated

on

any talk show

on

which

any Atheist representative from The Center

has ever appeared. (Read the sentence

again. It should shock you.)

Over the years, American Atheists have

found that such appearances are almost

totally useless

as

educational tools. Also,

they are

as

bones thrown

to

the

dogs -

the

least that media stations can offer in order

to

placate the public and give some sem-

blance of covering all points of view. The

truth of this evaluation is fo.und in the fact

that the guests and hosts are rarely

or

never

listed in your local newspopers -

as

you

have indicated. It does not matter if the

bones are of pork

or

of beef. Your city's

hard media is not alone in ignoring these

shows.

Several years back it became apparent

that unless the content of a television

or

radioprogram could

be

controlled byAmeri-

can Atheists, its representatives would nev-

er

have

an

effective voice. This is what is

now being developed, first,

on

community

access cable television channels. American

Atheists are not

on

any PBS

or

NET

channels

or

stations. In this, you err. Future

plans include such outreach.

All

of the above answers your questions

by saying that it is hit

or

miss that you may

catch one of

us

somewhere, sometime.

Generally, the number of shows

on

which

The Center's staff appears in anyone year,

isabout four hundred. Including the appear-

ances of all our Chapter representatives

across the nation, that count might rise

to

a

thousand

or

more. But, it's

a

big country,

and actually that number is small . . . not

even a crumb of what religion receives

daily.

It is

a

long, tiring, hard job ahead of us.

PageS



NEWS AND COMMENTS

POLITICAL PANDERING

The National Religious Broadcasters

Convention has become, in the Reagan

scheme of things, a show place whence

he

can demonstrate

his religious

con-

victions.In prior years, his most vicious

attacks on the collective intelligence of

the

nation

has been given

during

his

presentations to this group, when it

meets in

convention the first of each

year.

It is tragic that there issuch a group in

the United States. For many years

American Atheists has attempted to

obtain

from the Federal

Communica-

tions Commission (F.C.C.) a list of radio

and

television stations

owned

by reli-

gious organizations. The magnitude of

the tragedy of religious broadcasting

is

still unknown. Even the Freedom of

Information Act could not produce itas

the F.C.C. stonewalled every effort

to

discover information. The National Re-

ligious Broadcasters was cagey at best.

This year the Reagan administration

outdid itself. Not only was its religious

spokesman

Jerry

Falwell there, but he

introduced some of the speakers. And

they were (1) the President of the Unit-

ed

States,

(2)

the Vice

President

of the

United States, and

(3)

a Commissioner

of the F.C.C.

In introducing

Bush, Falwell

made a

Freudian slip. After ticking 01/the litany

of conservative religious concerns: mili-

tary

spending, abortion, prayer in

the

schools, in all of which Bush supports

that

group,

he then

turned

toward Bush

and said,

My friend, the

pres ...

the

vice president of the United States.

During

the

time

that Andropov head-

ed

the government of the U.S.S.R., the

'politicians of our nation took every

opportunity to identify him as

the for-

mer head of the KGB, the intelligence

service of the U.S.S.R. Not a murmur is

had, however, that Bush has been the

director of the CIA, the intelligence

service of the United States of America

(1976-1977),

after he had

spent some

time inPeking, China, as the chief of the

U.S.

Liaison Office (1974-1975) to

that

country.

And on the fourth day of March, on a

visit to

his home state of Texas, Bush

revealed through the Waco Tribune

Herald that he will make his full bid to

become

president

of the

United

States

in 1988 within the next tWo months.

Page 6

Remember that Reagan s

choice

ofBush

for

a running mate

had been

to

balance

the ticket between the right-wing Rea-

gan and the liberal Bush. Now, Bush is

also the darling of the more radical right

wing, and

the selection of Falwell to be

Reagan s successor. We ve come to

believe,

now in 1985,

Falwell empha-

sized, that he has complemented the

(Republican) ticket. He also comple-

mented

the Texas oil

interests'

fight for

the notorious oil depletion allowance

- which benefits his

own lucrative

01/-

shore drilling.

Three top representatives of our na-

tion's

government groveled before the

religious broadcasters. Three such top

executives would not befeatured speak-

ers for the American Association of

Science, or

NOW,

or

the NAACP. They

stay away from any such conventions

- with the excuse that the president

and

vice

president are too concerned

with executive duties (unless he is run-

ningfor re-election). But, when

it comes

to

an

identification

with the

most

bla-

tantly irrational elements of our culture

- our

chief executives are there.

For your edification, we present for

you in the following pages the full re-

marks of

President

Reagan, Vice

Pres-

ident George Bush, and James H.

Quello, a Commissioner of the F.c.c.

Remarks of the President to the

National Religious Broadcasters

Convention

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Brandt Gustavson,

Dr. Ben Armstrong and all of you distin-

guished ladies and gentlemen, it's good to be

here.

I've been coming to this annual conven-

tion since 1982, and it's always been one of

the high spots of the year. This year, withthe

inaugural and the State ofthe Union and our

arms control preparations and our work on

reforming the tax system, I had to discipline

myself and say No to a few things that I

enjoy, but I didn't like - or learn to like my

decision.

So, the other day I reversed myself.

[ La ug h te r ] [A pp l au se ]

Iwas so mad Ialmost

fired myself.

[Laughter]

I've decided to give

myself another chance and I hope you will

April,1985

too.

[Laughter]

There is a real and a heartfelt reason why

I'm here today. I just sent the budget to the

Congress.

[Laughter]

And I hope that, at

least in spirit, sort of figuratively, W e can all

from here on have our hands joined in

prayer.

AUDIENCE:

Amen.

THE PRESIDENT: The next few days, and

maybe weeks, will probably be dominated,

in terms of the news, by talk of economic

matters - budgets and the tax structure

and so forth. But Iwant you to know that as

we begin the great work ahead of us, I've

been thinking very much about Divine Provi-

dence, and turning to our Lord and asking

for His guidance. I have found myself as

Abraham Lincoln did once - driven to my

knees more than ever because there was no

place else to go. [Applause]

But I'm also aware as never before that

what the polls show is true:

In virtually every public survey there are

indications that the importance of spiritual

faith has grown stronger among the people

ofour country. Recent Gallup surveys show

sixty-four percent of Americans - adults

- express a great deal or quite a lot ofconfi-

dence in the church or organized religion.

Fifty-six percent of Americans believe that

religion can answer all or most of today's

problems. Infact, only one infive doubts the

relevance of religion in the modern world.

And we'll get them, too. [Laughter] [Ap-

plause]

As a resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave-

nue, Imay have a special vantage point from

which to judge these things. In December,

when Ilooked north from the White House, I

would see the huge Menorah, celebrating

the Passover* season in Lafayette Park.

And when I looked south from the Truman

Balcony, I could see the Pageant of Peace

and the creche symbolizing the birth of

Christ. Showing the symbols ofour beliefs in

this way and what it - is, for many of us, the

holiest time of the year, is good - good for

all of us, for Christians and Jews and any

others who wish to share the joy of our

holidays.

The other day Iwas at the National Prayer

Breakfast here in Washington, and I spoke,

as so many others did, ofthe central place of

faith inour lives and how belief in something

bigger than ourselves is probably a neces-

*Hanukkah

American Atheist



NEWS AND COMMENTS

sary precondition to peace. And Imentioned

that after four years in this job, I know as

never before that we are all God's children,

that the clerk, the king, and yes, the com-

munist were made inHis image. [Applause]

And I'veoften wondered about one indivi-

dual there because when Isaid that, a fellow

in the back of the room - and I h eard him

say, Amen. [Laughter] There were more

than 3,000 people inthat room, from almost

every country in the globe. African chiefs,

Central American businessmen, people

from Australia and Europe and the Middle

East. And the room seemed to hum with

agreement that faithand beliefare the key to

man's salvation and the only way we'll learn

to live with each other in peace.

Allofyou, allof the people inthis room are

doing your part to fill the world with God's

work and make more gentle man's life on

earth. Like St. Peter, and his brother, St.

Andrew, you've been good and faithful fish-

ermen and you've fought the good fight -

for prayer in the schools and against abor-

tion and for freedom in the world. You

know, perhaps better than I, that you have

never let us down.

And I'm not too shy today about asking

you for your continued support in many

areas including our economic program. It

occurs to me that the doctrine of election

means one thing to some of you and quite

another to those ofus who hold public office.

[Laughter] When Iwas re-elected inNovem-

ber, I didn't figure I was being sent back to

the White House to turn back the policies of

the past.

AUDIENCE: Amen.

THE PRESIDENT: I still believe the gov-

ernment isthe servant ofthe people and not

the other way around.

[Applause]

We're trying to get government spending

down, to hold down the huge cost ofgovern-

ment, to keep it from taking the money you

deserve to keep for your family and your

future and for God's work. We mean to

ensure greater possibility for the production

of wealth by lowering tax rates through tax

reform. We mean to maintain a strong

defense because only with a strong defense

can we preserve the peace we cherish. And I

found myself wanting to remind you ofwhat

Jesus said in Luke 14:31: Oh, what king,

when he sets out to make war against

another king - or meet another king in

battle willnot first sit down and take counsel

whether he is strong enough with 10,000

men to encounter the one coming against

him with 20,000. Or else, while the other is

still far.away, sends a delegation and asks

the terms of peace. I don't think the Lord

that blessed this country as no other coun-

try has ever been blessed intends for us to

Austin, Texas

have to some day negotiate because of our

weakness. [Applause]

But all of these things I've mentioned are

pretty revolutionary. All of these things -

learning to control the government, limiting

the amount of money it can take from us,

protecting our country through a strong

defense, all of these things revolve around

one word, and that word is freedom. And

as Jefferson said, The Lord who gave us

life, the God who gave us lifegave us liberty

also.

That's what we stand for here and every-

where. And that's what I need for your

continued help inpreserving and promoting.

And every voice counts. These are crucial

days ahead of us, interms of the budget and

taxes and keeping our commitment to re-

build our defenses.

I need all of you as never before. And we

need Him as never before. And we mustn't

doubt at all that He will give us help and

support and encouragement and guidance.

You've given me these things time and

again. And for all ofthis, I am truly thankful.

And I thank all ofyou now for your wonder-

fulwarmth. I bask in this and willall the way

back to the White House. [Laughter] God

bless you all.

[Applause]

Excerpts from Remarks

by

Vice

President George Bush at the 42nd

Annual Convention of The National

Religious Broadcasters

During the recent inauguration ceremo-

nies, sitting there with Barbara on one side

and the President and Nancy on the other,

getting ready to place my hand on the Bible

and swear to support and defend the

Constitution, Iegan thinking ofthe opening

words of that document We the people .

in order to form a more perfect union I

thought of that union the founders created.

First of all, it was a union of liberty and

justice for all. Andjust as important, itwas a

union that formed one nation under God, a

moral as well as political union.

Now, that's not to say that it was a union

under one religion. We had and always will

have many denominations, many faiths. But

whatever the denomination, whatever the

faith, everyone was united around one core

of principles - principles of love, of toler-

ance and respect for others, of decency, of

reverence for a loving God whom we all

acknowledged, however we conceived of

Him, as the Creator of us all.

Faith, freedom, family, neighborhood,

April, 1985

work - these are the values that inspired

our nation; values that have kept us free and

strong over the years and that gave these

United States a greatness of spirit that made

it as a beacon of hope for all mankind. And

men and women came from all over this

world to live in the bright light of American

liberty, of American pluralism. Today they

still are drawn to that beacon. Our newest

citizens, it seems, are among those who

value our freedoms the most.

The idea of pluralism was rooted in our

very beginnings. A decent respect for the

opinions of all mankind: That was the

reason our forefathers gave for writing the

Declaration of Independence. Decency, re-

spect for diversity of opinions: That's what

American pluralism is all about.

Ion't know about you, but several years

ago Iwas asking myself, what has happened

to our American pluralistic union?

Take education as just one example.

I

cannot believe that the founding fathers

intended that the Consitution prohibit child-

ren from opening their school day with a

voluntary prayer.

Iannot believe that they intended that

the Constitution would prohibit measures to

extend pluralism and tolerance in education

- measures like the tuition tax credit.

And Iannot believe that they intended

that our Constitution permit the use of

school buildings by political groups of every

shade, but not by students of faith for the

study ofthe Bible, the word ofGod. Though

I'm glad to say that with your help, we

recently passed an equal access bill that

has started us off in the right direction

toward openness in our public schools.

Finally,Iannot believe the Constitution,

a document founded on a firmconviction in

the worth of the individual, could ever

sanction the wholesale destruction of in-

nocent human life.

No. To provide the Blessings of Liberty

to ourselves and our Posterity: that's what·

they said they intended the Constitution to

do.

What's happened? Well, I believe the

Constitution is still good and true. I believe

the government it created - of the people,

by the people, for the people - is still the

best on earth.

But I also believe that over the years we

turned too much to the Federal Govern-

ment to solve our problems and, in the

process, to overly regulate our lives. The

price we've paid is some measure of our

liberty.

We talk about compassion, for example,

and it's right that our national government

be compassionate. But compassion at the

national level is no substitute for loving our

neighbor at the local leveL I believe it's time

Page 7



N EW S AN D CO M MEN TS

we looked less to Washington and more to

our States and cities and counties and

towns, and more, beyond government -

more to our churches, our communities of

faith.

Ultimately, we must look to our own

resources, values, and moral beliefs - which

means that we must look to God for the real

and lasting hope for our personal lives. As

you take to the airways, this isbasically your

message. The future is not dark and fore-

boding and apocalyptic - ifwe have faith in

God.

We are now sitting down together at the

conference table withthe Soviet Union. Can

we have an understanding with them? Is it

possible to coexist on this planet? Is there

hope for lasting peace in the world? Yes, I

say there is hope. But our ultimate hope isin

God, with whom nothing is impossible.

In the last four years, Ithink we have seen

a new birth ofhope inthis country. As family

values are reinforced, as pride in country is

again treasured, as decency becomes more

honored, you have been on the cutting edge

bytaking the message ofhope and optimism

across our land - by teaching, listening,

caring. In sum, you have been involved.

I have always loved the story about the

enthusiastic parishioner who, after the ser-

mon, would be so inspired that he'd jump up

and yell, Use me, Lord. Oh use me, Lord.

The pastor called him in and told him the

Lord had decided to use him. Please paint all

these Sunday School benches and have

them ready by next Sunday. The man

quietly left.

The following Sunday, the preacher was

pleased to see his parishioner back in his

familiar pew. Following a stem-winder of a

sermon, the man jumped up, obviously

moved, and shouted, Use me, Lord. Use

me, but - use me in an advisory capacity.

We need more activists now to build the

compassionate, strong and hopeful America

we all desire. But if ever there was an

example of preaching to the choir, this must

be it. So I'll close with something from

Corinthians. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad

idea for everyone of us who stands before a

microphone or camera - everyone of us in

public life - to read the following New

Testament words every morning:

If I speak with the tongues of men

and of angels, but have not love, Iam

only a resounding gong or' a clanging

cymbal. IfI have the gift of prophecy

and can fathom all mysteries and all

knowledge, and if I have a faith that

can move mountains, but have not

love, Iam nothing. IfIgive allI possess

to the poor and surrender my body to

the flames, but have not love, I gain

nothing.

Page 8

I think it is precisely that love, that true

caring, which has enabled the electric church

to reach out to so many people and to be

such a tremendous force for good over the

years.

Thank you, and God bless you.

Remarks by Commissioner James H.

QueIl<..Federal Communications

Commission

at The National Religious

Broadcasters Association

Thanks for the generous introduction. I'm

reminded of a response made some years

ago by that great religious broadcaster,

Bishop Fulton J. Sheen.

Upon being applauded when introduced

he said, Thank you for this act of faith. If I

happen to be applauded in the middle of the

speech, I would presume it will be an act of

hope. And ifyou applaud at the end of the

speech, it willhave to be regarded as an act

of charity. So I'm somewhat comforted that

this compassionate audience has already

conferred upon me one of the three great

Christian virtues of faith, hope and charity.

Please keep me in mind forthe other two.

I'm delighted to revisit this esteemed

group and update my message. I made my

first appearance as a luncheon speaker

before you over six years ago.

Much has transpired since that time.

Many positive things have occurred for you

and even for me. There have been two

national elections, unprecedented progress

in broadcast de-regulation and freedoms

and continued growth and influence for the

electronic church.

During this period, I was fortunate to

receive two reappointments to the FCC

[Federal Communications Commission],

Since I have been living in Virginia for over

ten years and Ihave 6-1/2 years remaining to

serve on my present term, I decided to

become a Virginian. My wife and I like it

here.

I reviewed the history of Virginia and it is

an awesome experience for a native Michi-

gander. Michigan had its Fords, Romneys,

Harts and Vandenbergs, allof whom I know

or knew. But Virginia is the historical birth-

place of American greatness. The voice of

the revolution, Patrick Henry, was a Virgin-

ian. The pen of the Revolution, Thomas

Jefferson, was a Virginian. The sword of the

Revolution, George Washington, was a Vir-

ginian. The father ofthe constitution, James

Madison, was a Virginian. The author of the

Monroe Doctrine, James Monroe, was a

Virginian. A great Chief Justice ofthe Unit-

April, 1985

ed States, John Marshall, was a Virginian.

And today, in a more contemporary vein, a

powerful leader and moral voice of the

electronic church, Jerry Falwell, isa Virgin-

ian and a famous American whether you

agree or disagree with all his doctrines.

On a more minor note, today a first

generation Italian Roman Catholic, now a

Virginian, feels privileged to share his dereg-

ulatory views with this prestigious and per-

ceptive forum of religious leaders.

But first I want to remind you of my

personal experience with an impressive ex-

ample of your success. It has a fascinating

sequel. Imentioned Iwas a Catholic, but my

wife and I are the only Catholics left in the

family. We Quellos are really ecumenical.

My nieces and nephews are all Baptists,

Methodists or Unitarians. Two grandchild-

ren are Lutheran, one granddaughter is

Jewish - one of my sons was an agnostic

until his deliverance. Six years ago he was

miraculously transformed by a powerful

positive religious force that made him see

the light and brought him back to God. At

the time Isaid Iwanted Dr. Schuller to know

we had a younger Quello, a family man,

that's now a believer and loyal viewer to the

Hour of Power every Sunday morning in

Deerfield Beach, Florida. And you have a

senior Quello here who is both grateful for

this salvation and impressed with the posi-

tive power of persuasion of the electronic

church with its inspirational home delivery

service.

The very first dialogue began six years ago

when I was visiting my agnostic son in

Florida. Even though we are an unusually

ecumenical family, Ihad always hoped that a

Quello would somehow believe in God re-

gardless ofwhat particular gateway he chose

to salvation. It was Sunday morning. My

son, Dick, was tuning in some religious

program. Igrowled What have you got on,

the heretic hour?

His wife answered Oh no, Dick always

watches Dr. Schuller. I can't talk while Dr.

Schuller is on.

Dick looked up, Certainly you have

heard and seen Dr. Schuller?

I said I have heard of him but I haven't

seen him. (I have seen him many times

since.)

He was annoyed. Isn't it your job to

watch and analyze TV programs? This is

great ... if more religions could tell it like

'Hour ofPower,' you wouldn't have to worry

about heretics in your family.

I said, It isn't my job to watch every

program, but I'm delighted that you have

finallyseen the light - even though it had to

be delivered to your home.

The next sequence happened just this

past year - you haven't heard this before.

I got an early call from Dick. He said,

American Atheist



NEWS AND COMMENTS

Dad, do me and yourself a big favor. Iwant

you to go out today and buy a book Tough

Times Never Last but Tough People Do by

Dr. Robert H. Schuller. Read it and please

callme tomorrow night and tellme what you

think.

I said, Dick, we have thirty-two Corn-

mission items this week and I'llbe lucky ifI

have time to read the top most contentious

fi

e.

He said, Read Dr. Schuller's book first.

You willdo a better job at the Commission.

I couldn't quite accommodate my son's

time schedule, but I did read the book. It is

uplifting, inspirational and worthwhile. Read

it before your next service and you willdo

even a better job at your ministries.

Iwas so impressed by the book s

positive influence that

I urged

Choir-

man

Fowler

to

make this book required

reading be/ore

renewing any

broadcast

license.

[emphasis added - ed.] But as

highly as he esteems evangelism, he told me

it would be too regulatory. He would rather

have the book sell itself on the open market.

And speaking ofpowers ofpersuasion, we

at the FCC are stillunbelievably overblessed

with the continual flood of letters protesting

an issue that never existed. I

The letters received by the FCC opposing

atheism and pleading generally for religious

freedom on the air totalled over 17,722,000

at the end of 1984. In 1984alone we received

1,165,200. This unprecedented volume of

mail continues to pour in unabated.

This is an overwhelming display of the

power and influence of religion, electronic

and mainline. This is especially true consid-

ering the mail was initially generated by a

petition, not to keep God off the air, but

requesting a freeze on applications by relig-

ious institutions for television or FM chan-

nels reserved for educational stations. The

petition filed by two broadcast consultants

was denied August 1,1975.You won the war

over nine years ago. But the letters stillkeep

pouring in because the petition has some-

how become misconstrued as an atheistic

plot to keep God and religion off the air.

Believe me, we God fearing commission-

ers have truly seen the light. We are im-

pressed that in 1985like in 1978Jesus Christ

is still broadcasting's No. 1 super-star with

an unbelievable all-time high mail count.

But, seriously, we have to again issue our

regular counter-plea - and this comes

unnaturally to a former broadcaster likeme.

The

commissioner is discussing here the

totally false rumor that Madalyn O'Hair

had/has a petition before the FCC to pro-

hibit religious broadcasting. See the Amer-

ican Atheist magazine, Vol. 24, No. 5 -

May, 1982 issue, pp 10-20.

Austin, Texas

Please don't keep those cards and letters

rolling in. We are not administratively equip-

ped to handle them. More importantly,

remember that those wonderful but misin-

formed letter writers have now spent over

$3,544,400 in postage alone This doesn't

count the envelope, paper, time and effort in

mailing. This significant expenditure of

money and manpower could be efficiently

utilized for productive work and liveissues.

Next, I want to share with you some

thoughts about bigotry against evangelicals.

In a recent article headlined Religious Bigot-

ry of the 80's (Washington Times, Novem-

ber 9, 1984), American Enterprise Institute

resident scholar and Catholic Theologian

Michael Novak opined:

Thus, bigotry against evangelicals has

remained the last permissible bigotry.

Anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-Catholic,

anti-woman, anti-handicapped, and

other forms of bigotry are easily spot-

ted and publicly denounced. But even

'the best people' feel free to express

bigotry against evangelicals.

In another paragraph, Mr. Novak further

observed:

Somehow, wemanage to accept evan-

gelical Protestantism among blacks

better than among whites.

Mr. Novak went on to conclude:

It is much better for this nation to

have a 'Moral Majority' than a 'silent

majority' - better for two reasons.

First, by breaking their silence, the

evangelicals have learned that they

are

not

a

majority,

but only a sig-

nificant minority. They also have

learned that other Americans do not

spontaneously admire their morality.

Second, by entering the national

debate, they have been obliged to

rethink their positions, develop larger

sensitivities, expand their horizons,

learn new forms of cooperation and

civil argument. Entering the national

dialogue has been good for them -

and for the rest of us.

Mr. Novak's points are excellent.

First, the bigotry against Fundamentalist

Christians recently shown by many of The

Establishment

is insufferable. Even as fine a

man as Walter Mondale - who undoubt-

edly doesn't have a bigoted bone in his body

- fell into this latest trap of intolerance.

During the last presidential election much

rhetoric was made about the injection of

religion into politics during the campaign

such as:

April,1985

IfRonald Reagan is re-elected, Rev-

erend Jerry Falwell willpick the next

two or three Justices of the Supreme

Court.

Idon't know one member of The Establish-

ment who denounced that prediction as

suggesting religious prejudice, nor did The

Establishment media.

But, suppose - just suppose - the

Reagan campaign had declared: '

IfWalter Mondale is elected, Rabbi

Alexander Schindler willpick the next

two or three Justices of the Supreme

Court.

Can you imagine the editorial hue and

cry from The Establishment church and

press.

I bring this up only to reinforce Michael

Novak's point that we may be falling -

inadvertantly - out of step with our highly

cherished tradition of tolerance. We must

never

forget that America exists

primarily

because thousands of intrepid souls who

faced the perils ofthe sea and the wilderness

were desperately fleeing the religious intol-

erance of old Europe. The Huguenots were

fleeing the French Catholics; the English

Catholics were fleeing the Anglicans; the

Calvinists and the Quakers were fleeing

everybody. In the second Great Migra-

tion, the Irish Catholics were running from

the Protestants and Jews were escaping the

pogroms of the Czar.

So, today, I ask my American brothers

and sisters of The Establishment or main-

linechurches: Let's tap some ofthe precious

resevoir of religious tolerance for those with

whom we disagree, and truly honor their

right to practice and preach in accordance

with their understanding of God's way.

Michael Novak's second point - and

mine - is that we should welcome the

dialogue that follows the intrusion of

church views into our secular society. I do

not have to personally agree with all, or any,

of the views of the Chicago bishops on

nuclear deterrence or on economic justice,

to be glad that they have spoken out. By

ventilating their tentative views in the public

forum, they have necessarily opened them-

selves up to the criticism of a larger universe,

one which may not share those views or

their moral judgments. And in the wake,

views become qualified and modified before

they are codified. By that process, we all

absorb new points of view, and that is the

essence of education and understanding.

The same is true ofthe Moral Majority. I

don't have to accept all of their views -

either sectarian or secular. But I do learn

from them, as well as from the responses of

Page 9



N E W S A N D C O M ME N TS

those who disagree.

These robust, wide-open debates are the

intellectual salvation of our unique country;

and as an FCC Commissioner, Iwillfight to

the last breathe to make sure that our

nation's broadcasting airwaves are open to

all important views - including the views of

you

out there today, delivering God's mes-

sage direct to miJIionsof American homes.

Religious broadcasting has long been part of

. the great American mosaic - as great a part

as the fearless circuit -ridingpreachers ofour

pioneer past. And so I say to the religious

broadcasters ofAmerica: You can count on

the FCC to be prime protectors for the

Constitutional guarantees of freedom of

speech and religion.

However, religious broadcasters have the

responsibility ofmaintaining the highest pro-

fessional standards to merit continued re-

spect and support. Unfortunately, you, too,

must self-regulate and guard against the

greedy, the unethical, the intolerant, the

cultists and the fiscallycareless.

The overall inspirational positive influence

of your broadcast ministeries must not be

tainted by the indiscretions and intolerance

of a very iew.

I'm personally delighted to see you pop-

ularizing and glorifying God on TV and

radio. You are attracting miJIionsof Ameri-

cans to religious faithand a better way oflife

who would not otherwise be reached or

influenced. I'm glad to see the impressive

public acceptance and support inspired by

ministries who build beautiful monuments to

God that wiJIserve mankind for years to

come.

In my opinion, the ultimate test for evan-

gelical religious broadcasters as well as for

mainline religions is: Does it inspire a loyal

following to have faith in God and a beliefin

religious virtues that result ina better way of

Life?Does itmake for a more decent, better

and stronger American?

My answer is a resounding yes So, to the

Schullers, Falwells, Humbards, Grahams,

Roberts, the Moody BibleInstitute and to all

the dedicated religious broadcasters here

and in the hinterlands - and to Ben Arm-

strong and Dick Wiley - may your tribe

increase and God bless you.

Page 10

J E S U S C H R IS T F L .A V I U S

C A N 'T '{ O U G E T A N '{ T HIN G

R I G H T

April,1985 American Atheist



The following is the fourth of a series

of articles on the French philosophes

the

intellectual leaders

of the Enlighten-

ment of seventeenth and eighteenth

century Europe. A second article on the

Marquis de Sade willappear next month.

D

onatien Alphonse Francois, the Mar-

quis de Sade (1740-1814)was to curse

the day of his birth and his name, but never

did he recant that he was an atheist philo-

sopher.

Because of the scandals associated with

his name during the first period of his life, he

spent twenty-seven years in prisons and

died a sane man in the mental hospital of

Charenton. His name is reviled as the basis

ofthe word sadism, meaning A condition

inwhich sexual gratification depends largely

on the inflictionof pain upon others. Recent

literary history shows that such a charac-

terization of him is inaccurate.

There is no doubt that during many years

of his life he was indeed a sado-masochist,

but it also is true thatwhen he regained his

freedom during the French Revolution, he

Agony, which became famous because of

the chapter The Shadow of the 'Divine

Marquis.' The Marquis de Sade, one of the

most heinous names in Western literature

- divine ? The appellation piqued the in-

terest of several significant scholars, who

began to reassess Sade and to find his

influence on Western literature to be con-

siderable. Could this pervert have influ-

enced so many great literary figures?

The second source of research on Sade

has been the work of two superb French

scholars, Maurice Heine and Gilbert Lely.

The latter wrote an inconsequential intro-

duction to a very brief, introductory anthol-

ogy of Sade's work

(D.A.F.

de Sade; Paris:

Pierre Seghers, 1948).Lely's day inthe lime-

light ofSadean scholarship was yet to come.

Heine's book, The Marquis de Sade (1950)

remains a landmark of scholarship. At long

last a scholar of impeccable credentials had

surfaced, a person who rose above the

traditional views of Sade to reevaluate his

work. Heine's brilliant study was closely fol-

lowed by that of Lely, whose biography of

Sade in 1952 and his edition of Sade's

Complete Works (Oeuvre completes; 1966)

brought Sade's major works and letters

never returned to his former lifestyle. Infact,

his actions were altruistic. For instance, he

devoted himself to modernizing Parisian

hospitals, he loved his mistress tenderly (she

was to be with him for over twenty years),

and cared for her young son under the most

adverse conditions without the slightest taint

of sexual activity; moreover, when he had

the opportunity to take revenge on the

person who put him in prison for thirteen

years, he refused to use his power - he put

himself in danger of being arrested in order

to secure her freedom.

A Reconsideration

Scorned for most ofhis lifeand for almost

a century and a half after his death because

ofthe scandals and his writings, the Marquis

de Sade is now being reconsidered, and he is

emerging as one of the great philosophes

and influencial minds of post-Enlightenment

thought.

Three scholars have changed all views of

Sade's life and work. The first was Mario

Praz, an Italian, who wrote a book which

was translated into English as The Romantic

Austin, Texas

together so scholars could study them.

The study of Sade has been significantly

enhanced by two works inEnglish. The first

isby the anthropologist Geoffty Gorer, who

rewrote an earlier work and in 1963 pub-

lished itas The Life and Ideas of the Marquis

de Sade (New York: Norton). It is a fine

study of Sade's lifeand major works, and it

also treats his lesser known writings. Gorer

also directs scholarly attention to the study

ofSade's intellectual origins. Donald Thomas

published his excellent study ofSade in 1976

in which he argues convincingly that one of

the quintessential influences on Sade's life

was his cultrual milieu. Thomas points out

that the Regency (1715-1723)was a period of

relaxed moral standards. The Regent, his

mother once said, used a woman in the

same spirit that he used his toilet bowl. The

Regent also possessed a fineSievres dinner

service, each piece ofit ingeniously obscene

and so remarkable that it was valued in the

middle of the nineteenth century at 30,000

livres:

Such was the climate of aristocratic

libertinage, Thomas adds, which had been

carefully fostered in Parisian society during

the twenty years before the birth of the

April, 1985

Marquis de Sade. Even to a young nobleman

with pretentions tovirtue, the path was

perilous enough, but to one who felt an

enthusiasm for vice and sexual exploitation

every opportunity was available. The Re-

gency ended before Sade was born, but

Sade was raised in its cultural atmosphere.

When the new king began to restrict those

excesses, Sade would pay the penalty.

The Marquis de Sade was born on June 2,

1740, into one of the noblest, oldest, and

most prestigious families in France, one

allied by birth to the throne. His father

served as ambassador to four countries

(including Russia and England) and was lord

over extensive estates near Avignon. Sade

was educated by his uncle, the Abbe de

Sade and then at the prestigious College

Louis Ie Grand in Paris. He gave no sign of

being a brilliant student, although he would

later give evidence of vast learning. He

began his army service when he was four-

teen years old and shortly afterward led a life

of gambling and womanizing in Paris. He

eventually fellin love with a woman, but his

father, facing major financial reverses, de-

cided that his son would marry Renee-

Pelagie de Montreuil, the second oldest

daughter of the very wealthy and socially

ambitious Montreuil family. Monsieur de

Montreuil was the president of a court which

dealt with welfare payments, a position

which was as elevated as a person of the

commercial class could attain in the rigidly

stratified French society. His wife, nick-

named Madame la Presidents, was very

socially ambitious, and she dominated her

husband and used his wealth and what

position he had to advance the family so-

cially.Given the rigidcaste system ofFrench

society, it would not be an easy task. The

elder daughter, who would be most impor-

tant in Sade's life, was very religious and

lived in a convent; there was yet a son to be

married, a fact which would prove most

costly to Sade. The Count de Sade was

aware of these facts; he did not sell his only

son cheaply. On May 17, 1763, Renee-

Pelagie and the Marquis de Sade - new

wealth and old name - were married.

Five years passed. They were not without

interest. Sade's taste in entertainment, es-

pecially with Parisian actresses, had come to

the attention of the police. Gradually, his

escapades and expensive lifestyle forced

Madame la Presidente to change her view

of him from being a funny boy to a mad-

man. Sade's father had reached the end of

his patience, and there is reason to suspect

that he had his son imprisoned on a lettre de

cachet for two weeks in order to bring the

Marquis to his senses. Events would prove

that the Count failed. The Count died on

January 24,1767, and the Marquis inherited

whatever fortune the Sade family had left,

which was so little that the Marquis was

imprisoned for eight days in 1771 in a

debtor's prison.

Page 11



Rose Keller Scandal

Then came the morning of April 3, 1768.

About 9:00 AM., Sade met Rose Keller on a

street inParis where she was begging - she

was an unemployed cotton spinner. Her

native language was German - .she was

Alsacian - and she did not speak French

very well, but Sade later said in a legal

deposition that she knew exactly what he

meant by his overtures. She claimed that he

offered her a job in his household; he said

she was a prostitute. They went to his house

inArceuil, which was then a suburb ofParis.

He took her to a room, and according to her

testimony, forced her to undress, tied her

arms and legs to a bed, flogged her, cut her

with a knife, poured an ointment into her

wounds, and threatened to kill her. He left

the room, whereupon she managed to untie

herself, presumably dressed, tied some

sheets together, fastened one end, and then

shinnied down the wall to the garden below.

She then crossed the garden, climbed a wall,

and raced to the village.Sade's male servant

sprinted behind her asking her to stop

because his master had not paid her, but she

outdistanced him. Once in town, she met

some women who befriended her, and the

case was taken to the police. Thus began

The Rose Keller Scandal, which would

gain European-wide fame.

DidSade seduce and abuse a poor woman

or was she in reality a prostitute? Kellerwas

examined the next day by a physician, who

reported ina sworn affidavit that she showed

no signs of being tied up, although she

clearly had been beaten about the buttocks.

If she had not been tied up, then she must

have been a willing participant. It is also

hardly likelythat a woman who had just been

tortured as she said she had been would

have been capable of such physical feats as

shinnying down sheets, climbing a wall, and

sprinting to the village.

The Rose KellerCase quickly became a

European scandal. Madame du Deffand, a

leading Parisian socialite, wrote to Horace

Walpole, the English writer, about the in-

cident, and she did not hesitate to embellish

freely on the facts. Restif de la Bretonne, a

French pornographer who wrote for a Pari-

sian newspaper and who became a foe of

Sade, was a caustic publicist ofthe case. He

portrayed Keller as a poor woman abused

by a nobleman, and he, too, added freely to

the evidence. He reported that Sade had

planned to dissect Keller physically, but

when he went to admonish his servants to

get further away from the dissection room

so they would not hear her screams, she

managed to free herself. Bretonne also

added that Keller said that she saw three

corpses as she left the grounds of Sade's

house. Given such publicity, the authorities

had to act forcefully: Sade was arrested and

imprisoned on April 23, 1768.

Enter on the stage of Sade's life his

Page 12

mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil. The

greatly-valued name of de Sade was in

danger; Madame la Presidente went to

work. Through her emmisaries, she offered

a bribe to Keller to change her story. Keller

proved difficultto bribe. Her initial offer was

outrageous, but ultimately she yielded.

She was very expensive. ( Madame laPresi-

dente paid her 2,600

livres.)

Was Keller,

with her tale of her seduction and flogging,

deliberately trying to bilk the Sade-Montreuil

family?

A few peaceful years passed. Then, on

June 27, 1772, Sade and his male servant

were in Marseilles and hired four women,

eighteen to twenty-three years old, from a

procuress. As part of the orgy, Sade was

sodomized by his male servant and then

Sade sodomized one ofthe females. Sodomy

was a cepital crime. He then gave candy

laced, unbeknown to the women, with an

aphrodisiac. Two of the girls became vio-

lently illafter the orgy and needed medical

attention. Sade had no knowledge of their

condition because he and his servant had

left Marseilles the next morning. The epi-

sode was far from over; it had just begun.

The illness of the two girls led to the

analysis of their vomit by two pharmacists,

who concluded that the girls had been

poisoned. Poisoning, like sodomy, was a

capital crime. But there are some significant

questions. Were these women exploited?

Unlike the Rose Keller Case, there is no

doubt that these women were prostitutes

and knowingly and willinglyengaged in sex-

ual acts with Sade and his servant. Although

the candy is clearly another question, Sade

showed no malice in giving it to them.

Sade, meanwhile, returned to his home at

La Coste, and it was there that he learned of

the warrant for his arrest. He acted imme-

diately: He sent his wife to Marseilles to

bribe the two girls, while he, his male ser-

vant, and Sade's sister-in-law, Anne-Pro-

psere,

escaped to Sardinia. It is difficult to

underestimate the importance of this esca-

pade. From an Atheist's standpoint, it is

clear that if he wanted to have sexual

relations with his sister-in-law, then so be it,

but there were other considerations. Anne-

Propsere was marriagable now that she had

left the convent; in fact, she was scheduled

to marry. Sade's affair with Anne-Propsere

could not only scuttle the marriage but harm

the opportunities of the son to marry advan-

tageously. There was also the names of

Sade's chidren - Madame la Presidente

had become their legal guardian - to be

protected. She was at the end of her pati-

ence; now Sade would know her power and

wrath. Walter Lennig

(Portrait

de

5ade;

1965) speculates that Sade's affair with his

sister-in-law was an irreparable blot on the

familyreputation, and from the moment she

discovered the truth, Madame de Montreuil

became the Marquis' sworn enemy - the

fullimplications of which he was to experi-

April,1985

ence in the future.

Sade and his male servant were tried

in

absentia:

He was found guilty, sentenced to

repent publicly in front of the cathedral,

and then to be beheaded on the guillotine.

His servant was to be hung. Both corpses

were then to be cremated, and the ashes

were to be scattered in the wind.

Madame la Presidente learned Sade's

location and then used her power to get the

King of Sardinia to arrest him. It was done,

but Sade escaped and returned surrepti-

tiously to his home at La Coste. The year

1774 was very important in Sade's life: the

king, Louis XIV, died, and thus the arrest

orders against Sade were invalid. Feeling

reasonably safe, Sade travelled to Paris and

then returned to La Coste and hired a young

boy to be his secretary and fiveservant girls

(all fifteen years old). Clearly, Madame de

Sade was aware ofthe hiring, and during the

seclusion at La Coste, she must have been

part of the events which took place. Then

problems arose. One ofthe girls began to tell

stories in the village about events at the

castle. Some ofthe parents fileda complaint,

and one of the young girls was surrepti-

tiously taken to the Abbe de Sade's chateau

where she told a lurid tale. There was also

the case of her pregnancy by the Marquis.

The Sade and Montreuil families were out-

raged, but they went to considerable effort

to silence the girl,which they did by bribery.

She was not nearly as expensive as Keller.

There are fundamental questions: To what

extent was Sade a pervert? Did he exploit

the children? The Sade-Montreuil families

certainly thought so.

Lettre de cachet

On February 8, 1777, Sade and his wife

went to Paris, where Sade wanted to see his

dying mother, although she had already died

by the time he arrived. Sade knew his visit

was risky because he sent his wife to stay

with her mother while he stayed with his

former tutor at Louis IeGrand so his mother-

in-law would not know he was in town.

Nevertheless, his wifestupidly told her moth-

er where Sade was staying. Madame la

Presidente obtained a

lettre

de

cachet,

and

the same day Sade was arrested.

Arther Wilson, the brilliant scholar of the

Enlightenment comments that in the eight-

eenth century the letter

de

cachet was used

to enforce family discipline, but it became

one of the most odious symbols of the

ancien regime . . .

forty thousand were

issued in the seventeen years of Cardinal

Fleury's administration alone. Wilson ex-

plains that:

Apologists for the good old days

point out that for the most part

[lettres

de

cachet]

were used to straighten

out family tangles . . . There is no

record of active maltreatment of per-

American Atheist



sons detained by lettres de cachet: no

evidence, for example, of torture or

starvation, though there is a forget-

fulness. Indeed, orders were given

that people should be granted food

and drink in approximate accordance

with their social rank ... But lettres de

cachet ... did not have to state the

cause of arrest. Furthermore, per-

sons thus arrested were held incom-

municado, and it was entirely legal to

detain them indefinitely. There came

to be a rather widespread feeling in

France when Sartine was Lieutenant-

General of Police (1959-74) that the

practice of issuing lettres de cachet

was becoming too extensive. By the

time of the Revolution, they had

aroused a great sense of injustice.

In his cell, the Marquis de Sade pleaded,

begged, ranted, and went into insane rages.

The jailers were not allowed to speak to him

or pay any attention to his pleas. After three

months in solitary confinement, he was

allowed to have paper, pens, and exercise

twice a week. He was wellaware ofwho had

obtained the

lettre de cachet,

and he begged

Madame la Presidente to let him go into

exile, but she had another plan. Through her

influence, Sade was granted the right to

appeal the decision of the court which

sentenced him to death, and eventually the

appeals court struck down that decision. He

thought he was free, but he was returned to

prison because of the lettre de cachet. He

was sent back to Vincennes Prison inParis.

It is fair to ask where the justice was in the

lettre de cachet. Perhaps he should have

been punished for his affair with the chil-

dren, but that was not a legal issue. Tech-

nically, Sade had not committed a crime; he

was imprisoned because of his mother-in-

law's machinations.

He was allowed to furnish his cell, and his

family paid for his food, which was indeed

adequate. He was allowed to receive books,

and eventually his personal library became

extensive. He knew the works of many of

the philosophes, including Diderot, d'Alem-

bert, and the Baron d'Holbach, (1723-1789),

who was a principal influence on his thought.

Itishardly likelythat Sade read the works of

these men while in prison because Sade's

wife and prison authorities censored the

books he was allowed to read. Nevertheless,

Sade admitted to having read d'Holbach's

The System of Nature.

Because of the renovations at the Vin-

cennes Prison, Sade was transferred to the

Bastille prison in Paris in 1784.His cell was a

small, octagonal room -fifteen feet in diam-

eter and fifteen to twenty feet high - with a

stove to heat it. He was allowed to furnish

the cell. Beginning inearly October, 1788,he

had an invalid servant, who was paid by

Sade's family. Sade's medical needs, and

they were pressing, were attended to by

Austin, Texas

Parisian specialists who came to the prison.

He had been having severe problems with

his eyes; the ailment proved to be keratitis.

To give him better light, he was given a cell

on the fourth floor of the prison tower, but

he nevertheless became permanently blind

in one eye.

One day in 1789,Sade looked out from his

cell in the Bastille and noticed a crowd.

According to the police report, Sade seized

a long funneled pipe he had to facilitate

pouring water, shoved it through the win-

dow facing the Rue Saint Antoine, and

harangued the crowd. He shouted insulting

remarks about the governor of the Bastille

and claimed that people were being mur-

dered at the prison; his tirade attracted a

large crowd. On July 3 he was transferred

to the asylum of Charenton, a mental hos-

pital. Eleven days later, a crowd stormed the

Bastille (July 14, 1789). It is one of the

paradoxes of history, Lenning comments,

that Sade undeniably contributed to the

French Revolution, by drawing the atten-

tion of the public to the Bastille a s t he strong-

hold of royal tyranny. It is also paradoxical

that during the sacking ofthe Bastille almost

all of his manuscripts, which argued so

strongly for freedom, were burned, pil-

laged, torn up, and carried off.

After Imprisonment

In March 1790, the Assembly released all

prisoners held by lettre de cachet who were

not insane; on April 2, 1790- Good Friday

- Sade was once again a free man. Clearly,

the state did not consider him insane or

dangerous to the public. So much for the

argument that he was a dangerous sex fiend,

a man of monstrous sexual proclivities. He

was fiftyyears old, and he had spent thirteen

years in prison. He had not been guilty of a

single criminal charge; he had been inprison

because ofa lettre de cachet obtained by his

mother-in-law.

Sade could not return to his wife because

she had fallen back into the arms of the

priestcraft and joined a convent, where she

later died. Not only did she and her mother

burn many of Sade's manuscripts they had

in their posession, but she refused to give

him the manuscripts which she had smug-

gled out of prison toward the end of his

incarceration. The separation was legalized

on June 9, 1790, and Sade was ordered to

return 164,842 francs as part of her dowry,

but Sade was penniless.

During his freedom, Sade's activities fell

into two categories. First, he became an

administrator for some of the Parisian hos-

pitals. It was during his tenure that many

humane policies were put into practice.

Secondly, he was very busy writing plays

and trying to get them produced. He had no

success because the plays were terrible.

On January 21, 1793, Louis XVI was

beheaded, and the French faced major fi-

April,1985

nancial difficulties, civil unrest, and foreign

wars. As the tensions increased, the French

became suspicious of anyone who did not

completely accept the Revolutionary Gov-

ernment and such people were treated se-

verely. The Reign of Terror began and

with it the tumbrels bringing people to the

Place de laRevolution to be guillotined. Sade

cursed his name because it caused him to be

suspect. Sade's sons had left France and

were actual emigres, but Sade's name was

confused with their's, and itwas he who was

to suffer the consequences. He was arrested

on December 8, 1793 for being anti-revol-

utionary and sentenced to b e guillotined, but

fortunately for him, before the sentence

could be carried out, Robespierre, the prin-

cipal figure of the Reign of Terror, was

overthrown and guillotined.

Sade was freed on October 15, 1794. He

lived in Paris with his mistress's young son

during the winter, and there is no reason to

suspect homosexuality. Sade earned a pit-

tance working at menial labor in a theater,

but he nevertheless managed to feed and

care for the boy.

Life with Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte came into power in

his coup d'etat of 1799, and in 1804 he

proclaimed himself Emperor of the French.

Almost from his first day inoffice, Napoleon

wanted to stabilize the revolution, that is,

reject what he considered its excesses. Thus

the paths of the great Napoleon and the

titanic genius de Sade were to cross. In July,

1800, an anonymous pamphlet appeared,

Zoloe, which attacked Napoleon and his

wife, Josephine. Sade was thought to be the

author, but recent scholarship has refuted

that. Nevertheless, the accusation remained.

Napoleon was furious. Sade's name came to

his attention about ninety days after the

appearance of Zolo-e, when a leading Pari-

sian newspaper published a review of a

collection of Sade's short stories called The

Crimes of Love. This was too much, and

Sade consequently became the focal point

of Napoleon's efforts to eradicate porno-

graphy from French culture. Sade was ar-

rested (March 6, 1801) in the office of his

publisher, who probably had assisted the

police by telling them where Sade could be

found. Sade was sent to prison, technically

for administrative punishment for having

written Justine and Juliette.

Sade continued to write while in prison -

he would never leave during the last thirteen

years of his life - but the police frequently

confiscated his works. Moreover, his wife,

the bovine Renee-Pelagia, had returned to

religion, and she was no longer a courier of

his manuscripts out of prisons. He even-

tually was sent to the mental hospital at

Charenton where he staged his brilliant

theatrical productions, but an administra-

[cont'd on

pg.

17]

Page 13



Lowell Newby

Coming Out of the Closet

~

~

I

as raised to be so very nice. And

nice people, I was told, have to obey

tain rules. For example, they don't talk

oudly, they wear subdued colors, they allow

ther people to go first, they are especially

olite to their elders, and they never, but

ever, argue or express a strong opinion. IfI

ad been one of the unfortunates gassed at

hwitz, it would not have been out of

haracter for my last words to the execu-

r to have been, Have a nice day.

lark Kent, Walter Mitty, and Darren on the

d Bewitched show - these are my

l peers.

So what does a nice person like myself

o when he first becomes an Atheist? How

oes he handle those awkward moments

hen his nosey sister-in-law asks why he

it attending church, or his elderly cousin

quests that he return grace at mealtime,

his neighbors eye him suspiciously be

use atheist literature addressed to himhas

en mistakenly placed intheir mailbox? He

as a momentary mental breakdown. With

very outgoing nerve pipeline blocked by

licting messages, he merely stares in

responsive horror as his distraught brain

arches futilely for an inoffensive reply.

The maxim that No one who ever ad-

d human thought did so without mak-

g somebody mad, is meaningless to him

ecause his primary goal in life is to avoid

ing offense. He doesn't even care for

larity because being popular means

ng well-known, and well-known people

un a greater risk of making enemies. And

w could he sleep at night, he wonders, if

meone, somewhere, should become an-

with him or disapprove ofsomething that

did?

Yet, because this Mort Meek ofa man had

he audacity to reject the highest truths of

ur Christian nation in the first place, we

an assume that he has at least a modicum

intellectual courage and lovefor the truth.

, he is as stubborn as the proverbial

le. He is quietly stubborn, it is true, but

hose times when he stood unmoved behind

right cause (like when he was driven from

is teaching job in a rural Southern school

cause he grew a beard) constitute some of

he proudest moments of his life.

So what does he tell his sister-in-law, his

elderly cousin, and his disapproving neigh-

bors? When the fidgeting and the stam-

mering have passed, he tells them what he

feels he must - that his behavior can be

Page 14

6

(l

explained by the fact that he is an Atheist.

And although he might speak with a quiver

in his voice and might stand witha wobble in

his legs, given who he is, he has done the

best he can do. He willreceive no praise for

his courage; he willnot even be gentle with

himself for his timidity. Yet, he will grud·

gingly have to allow himself some pride in

knowing that, in spite of his fear, he has

remained true to his ideals.

And because he was true to his ideals, his

future holds tremendous promise. What his

parents never taught him,Atheism willteach

him. It will teach him that the need to have

his every word and his every action approv-

ed by everyone he meets is an imaginary

need. He willlearn that even ifpeople should

turn red inthe face and jump up and down in

anger because of his Atheism, he can go

home and sleep soundly, knowing that the

victory he wins tomorrow will have been

made a little easier by the one that he won

today. He will also learn that every act of

honesty is a personal affirmation of his right

to his own lifeand that every act of dishon-

esty is an act of treason that works to

destroy that life.

Perhaps it is never easy - those first few

steps out ofthe closet - but ifwe should put

April, 1985

our hands on the doorknob, so to speak,

only to draw back, only to abandon the

intellectual courage that made us Atheists in

the first place, then what value do we place

on our lives? How can we meet ourselves

with pride when we look in a mirror? How

can we face our fellowAtheists knowing that

their future has been jeopardized by our

timidity? Can any concern that we might

have for the feelings of religious lunatics

outweigh these considerations?

My own feelings about the image that I, as

an Atheist, would like to project were well-

expressed by Jon Murray when he altered a

well-known Marine advertisement to read,

The Few. The Proud. The Atheists. So

may we all conduct our lives. ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lowell Newby, a freelance writer, says

of himself, Being introspective by

nature, my interest inAtheism centers

around the innermost effects that it

has upon the individual, particularly

one who lives in a theistic environment

such as we now have in the United

States.

American Atheist



Mark Fara

MR. RIGHTEOUS NEIGHBORHOOD

T

he Armageddon Broadcasting Net-

work, ever on the move with innovative

gospel programming, ispleased to announce

what can only be termed a breakthrough in

children's instructional television. Following

isa transcript ofthe premiere episode ofthe

series, tentatively entitled Mr. Righteous'

Neighborhood, pending the outcome of the

copyright infringement suit currently in liti-

gation.

ANNOUNCER: And now, for the young

and young at mind, the Armageddon Broad-

casting Network goeth before a fall in pre-

senting Mr. Righteous' Neighborhood,

with your heavenly host, Mr. Robby Righ-

teous.

(Credits and theme music, then fade to

Mr. Righteous' livingroom. Mr. Righteous

enters through front door and removes his

sweater.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hello there, boys and

girls.How are you?

(Pauses)

Well?

(Pauses,

then

smiles.) Good. I'm fine, too. In fact, I'm

on top of the world, because I have Jesus in

my heart, and ifyou do too, why don't you

come closer to the TV set and we'll allsing a

little song together. Iknow a good song for a

lovely day like today. It's called We Will

Follow Jesus, so won't you sing with me?

(Pauses)

I knew you would.

(Piano intro, then sings)

We willfollow Jesus

Any where he goes

Into a hot volcano

Without a garden hose

Or over a high and rocky cliff

With gaters down below

Because he wipes our butts for us

And helps us blow our nose

Aaah-choo, aaah-choo, he helps us

blow our nose

We willobey Jesus

In all he says to do

Push two thumbtacks in our eyes

Ifhe tells us to

And tie big rocks around our necks

And jump into the deep

For he is the good shepherd

And we are all his sheep

Baaa-baaa, baaa-baaa, we are all his

sheep

Austin, Texas

Thank you for singing with me, boys and

girls.Wasn't that an inspiring littletune? Can

you say inspiring? Now, that's inspiring, not

conspiring. Conspiring is what the secular

humanists and communists over in Russia

are doing to subvert America's Christian

way of life. Can you say

subvert? (Pauses)

I

knew you could.

(Walks to

window

and pulls

open drapes.)

Oh, my. Itwas such a sun-shiny day just a

second ago, and now it looks like it might

rain.

(Thunder and lightning, sound of

rain

hitting roof.)

There it goes. The Lord sure

moves in mysterious ways, doesn't he? Can

you say

mysterious?

(Sings, with piano accomp.)

I wonder who might come drop by

On a rainy day like this.

What neighbor would come visit

On a rainy day like this?

Maybe we'll have a party.

Why, who knows what's in store?

Could be we'll even see Jesus

Who is always at every heart's door.

Now who could that be, boys and girls?

Let's go see.

(Walks toward the

door.)

Might even be Jesus, huh?

(Reaches and

opens

the

door.) Please come in, please.

(Bubbles the Bakerette squeezes through

the front

door, wearing a

chef's hat and

carrying a

cloth-covered tray.)

Why, it's Bubbles the Bakerette. Hello,

Bubbles.

BUBBLES: Hi, Mr. Righteous. Hi, boys and

girls.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Can you say hi to

Bubbles, boys and girls?

(Pauses)

I knew

you could.

(Bubbles waddles into the living

room,

places

the tray

on

the coffee table, and

then sits

on

the sofa.

Mr.

Righteous closes

the

door

and

joins

her.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: It sure is good to see

you, Bubbles.

BUBBLES: Well, my husband, Bobo the

Baker, and me just finished taping this

weeks' Pigging Out For Jesus in the other

studio, and - (Mr.

Righteous flashes her

a

stern look.)

Oops, Imean down the street at

The King's Bakery, and I thought I'd just

April,1985

(Giggles) bounce on by.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, it's always good to

have you.

(Squeezes her arm.)

Why, you're

not even wet. Did you have an umbrella?

BUBBLES: No, Mr. Righteous. Ilet the Lord

be my umbrella.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Isn't that wonderful,

boys and girls? The power-of God is just so

awesome.

BUBBLES: Totally.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: It's such a blessing to

serve a Lord who is so utterly, completely

provident.

BUBBLES: Uh-huh, and neat, too.

MR. RIGHTE;OUS: Yes, and omnipotent.

BUBBLES: And keen.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: And ineffable.

BUBBLES: And swell.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: And immutable.

BUBBLES: And

(Swallows heavily.)

marvy.

(Sighs softly.)

Oh, praise you, Jesus.

MR. RIGHTEOUS:

(Softly):

Yes, praise

you, Lord.

BUBBLES

(Eyes closed):

Mumble, mumble,

mumble ...

(They

eventually stop and shake their

heads

to

refocus their eyes.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, Bubbles ...

BUBBLES: Praise the Lord.

MR.RIGHTEOUS: Yes, praise Him. So, uh,

what have you brought for us today? (Ges-

tures to

the tray.)

BUBBLES: Well, my husband Bobo the

Baker and Iwhipped up some

(She removes

the cloth from the tray.)

salted pork chips.

(Close

up

of tray)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, my. That's one of

my all-time favorites. Could I please have

one, please?

BUBBLES: Why certainly, Mr. Righteous,

help yourself.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Thank you very much.

(He

takes

a nibble

of

one.) Mmmmmmm.

Page 15



Gracious, these are still warm.

BUBBLES: Yup. My husband Bobo the

Baker whipped up the dough and warmed

up the oven while I went out and shot the

hog.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: You don't say. (Returns

the chip to-the tray.) Well, how about that,

boys and girls?A husband and wifeworking

together just the way god wants it.

BUBBLES: That's right, Mr. Righteous.

Bobo . the Baker and I have a Christian

marriage. I give unto him the head of the

house, and he gives his head to the Lord.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well, praise be unto his

most holy name. And you shot the hog.

BUBBLES: Yup. Splattered that porker all

over the place. (Giggles) Bobo the Baker

calls me his little help-meat. Hee-hee-hee-

hee-hee ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hoo-hoo-hoo-hoo ...

BUBBLES: . . . hee-hee-hee-hee-hee, my

stomach hurts, hee-hee-hee ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Heh-heh. I'llbet it does.

Look at you. Why, heh-heh, you're laughing

so hard, you're crying.

BUBBLES: Oh. (She abruptly stops laugh-

ing.) I'll bet my make-up's running. (She

finds a dress pocket, fishes a compact from

within, opens it, and looks at her face in its

mirror.) Dang. (Wipes face with cloth from

pork chip tray. Regains composure. Re-

turns compact to pocket and sets cloth on

coffee table. Smiles.) Whew.

Mr. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, but I do so love to

watch a godly person laugh, don't you boys

and girls? (Pauses) I knew you did.

BUBBLES: You'd sure like it around our

house then. Bobo and me joke around like

that all the time.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Roberta and I do too,

Bubbles, because when you're ina marriage

blessed by the Lord ...

BUBBLES: There's always something to

laugh at.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, there is.

BUBBLES: Oh, praise the Lord.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Praise you, Jesus.

BUBBLES: He's so groovy.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: And omniscient.

BUBBLES: And boss.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Well (Chuckles) I know

he's certainly the boss in my life.

BUBBLES: Mine too, and like I was getting

ready to say, Bobo the Baker is such a cut-

up. Infact, he told me a joke last night while I

was giving his Porsche a lube job and he

made me promise that I'd tell it to the boys

and girls today. 'Course, he didn't have to

Page 16

make me promise, 'cause I always do what

he tells me anyway and besides, this isjust so

cute. Do I have time to tell it?

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Please do, please.

BUBBLES: Well, itseems that there was this

little black boy who was real hungry one

Sunday morning so he went to the black

people's bakery on his way to the black

people's church and he bought a chocolate

donut and when he got to the black people's

church he still had half of it left so he put it in

his pocket. And during the black people's

church service the black preacher says,

God be here. God be dere. God be every-

where. and the little black boy looks in his

pocket and says God, iffen you be in dere,

please don' eat mah donut. Hee-hee-hee-

hee.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Hoo-hoo. Isn't that a

good one, boys and girls?

BUBBLES: And while I'm here, Mr. Right-

eous, I'd liketo share my favorite Bible story

with the boys and girls.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Mygoodness, we've just

got surprises and. blessings out the old

kazoo today, don't we boys and girls? Can

you say Bible? I kn ...

BUBBLES: Mr. Righteous, did you know

that was the first word out of my mouth

when I was a child?

MR. RIGHTEOUS: You don't say.

BUBBLES: Yup. I had this squeaky little

voice and I went (Squeaks) Bi-ble, Bi-ble.

MR. RIGHTEOUS (Slaps knee.): Oh, hoo-

hoo-hoo.

BUBBLES: Hee-hee. Iwas just the cutest l'i1

thing.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: I'llbe you were. (Winks)

Don't you boys and girls?

(Pauses)

I knew

you did.

BUBBLES: Anyways, here's my favorite

Bible story ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Goody. Let's just cover

up these pork chips before they get cold and

(Picks up cloth. Spreads iton coffee table in

amazement.) Bubbles, look at this cloth

(She looks and becomes briefly speechless.)

Look boys and girls: It's got her face on it.

(Holds cloth up to camera.) It's even still

. damp.

BUBBLES: (Gasps

in astonishment.)

A mir-

acle Hallelujua

Mr. RIGHTEOUS: God is truly with us

today

BUBBLES: Fer sure

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Oh, praise you Jesus.

BUBBLES: He's just so nifty.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: And omnipresent.

April,1985

BUBBLES: (Whispers) Praise you, Lord.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Eyes closed.) Mumble,

mumble, mumble ...

BUBBLES: Anyway, boys and girls, my

favorite Bible story is the one where Our

Lord was sleeping in a boat and all the

disciples were in there with him only they

were awake and they were real hungry and

this big storm started and they woke Jesus

up and he rebuked them, and ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Eyes pop open.) Can

you say rebuked.

BUBBLES: Of course Ican, Mr. Righteous. I

just did.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: No, Bubbles, I was

talking to the children.

BUBBLES: Oh, well, anyway they were real

hungry and he rebuked them and he stood

up and held his arms outstreched and ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Can you say outstrech-

ed? ..

BUBBLES: (Loudly and rapidly.) It stormed

for days and days and the disciples got

hungrier and hungrier and everybody ex-

cept Jesus got wet and caught colds but

Jesus kept his arms out and it stopped

raining and the sea parted right down the

middle. Then all the Israelites ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Er, yes Bubbles, and

what did the disciples say then?

BUBBLES:

(Crinkles

nose

impishly.)

Why,

don't you know your Bible, Mr. Righteous?

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Of course I do. I'm a

doctor of divinity. But tell the children.

BUBBLES: Why, they said: What manner

ofman is this, who can take but three loaves

of stale bread and an itty-bitty little old dried

up fish ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: ... and make the winds

and the sea obey him. (Pats her hand.) Isn't

that right, Bubbles?

BUBBLES: Well, it's your show. (Smiles into

camera.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, it is. (Smiles into

camera.) Praise the Lord.

BUBBLES: Yes, He's just so, so ...

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Yes, he is.

BUBBLES: And he's near, Mr. Righteous.

He's very near. he is. Ican feel him allaround

me and inside me. Deep inside me. Penetrat-

ing my very being with his flaming white-hot

love. Deeper ... deeper ... oh, Jesus, yes.

Oh, Jesus baby, oh, oh, oh ...

(There is a knock at the

door.

Bubbles sighs.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Bubbles, you don't sup-

pose ...

B~BBLES: Oh, Mr. Righteous. I'm feeling

American Atheist



his presence so strongly, it just could be.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Calls to door) Please

come in, please.

(Satan kicks down the door and enters)

MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Oh my

gosh It's the devil

(They leap to their feet.)

SATAN: Hah-hah-hah. Got any Michael

Jackson records?

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Great Caesar's ghost

SATAN: Welfare for everybody Hah-hah-

hah

BUBBLES: Eeek Begone Satan

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Quick, Bubbles Let's

rebuke him

MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Satan,

we rebuke thee Satan, we rebuke thee

Satan, we rebuke thee

BUBBLES: (Gestures to camera.) Come on

boys and girls

MR. RIGHTEOUS and BUBBLES: Satan,

we rebuke thee Satan we, rebuke thee

MR. RIGHTEOUS: In the name ofJesus.

SATAN: Hah-hah-hah You idiot, I'm Jew-

ish

BUBBLES:Eeeeeeeeeeeek He said Jewish.

Right in front of the children

SATAN: Cut defense spending Hah-hah-

hah

MR.RIGHTEOUS: Quick Bubbles, the pork

chips

BUBBLES: Good thinking Mr. Righteous.

(She picks

up

and holds the tray while Mr.

Righteous throws pork chips, which sizzle

as they hit Satan.)

SATAN: No, no, not pork Ah, they burn

They burn

BUBBLES: Take that you 0 1 devil you

SATAN: Aaargh (He stumbles out of the

front door, howling in pain.)

BUBBLES: Jeepers, that was awful.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Itcertainly was, wasn't it

boys and girls? (They reseat themselves on

the sofa. Bubbles sets the tray on the table.

Mr. Righteous picks

up

a single pork chip.)

I'llhang onto this, just in case.

BUBBLES: Well, I'lltell you one thing. Ifhe

thinks those pork chips burned, he should

just wait until Jesus throws him into the lake

of fire on Judgment Day.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's right. (Turns to

face camera.) And that's where you'll be

going, boys and girls,ifyou don't have Jesus

inyour heart. You'll be thrown into the lake

of fire that the Bible tells us God has

prepared for Satan and his angels ...

BUBBLES: And there won't be anything to

eat

MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's right, and you'll

burn all over and scream for your mommy

and daddy, but they'll be inheaven with our

Lord and they won't be able to hear you and

you'll bum and burn and burn ...

BUBBLES: And you'll be so hungry

MR. RIGHTEOUS: But you'll never burn up

completely and bugs willeat your insides out

forever and ever ...

BUBBLES: And they'll get bigger and fatter

and just keep eating more and more of you,

but they'll never eat you up, and they won't

burn up, either.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: No, they won't

BUBBLES: But if you give your heart to

Jesus, then the bugs won't eat it, and you'll

be happy forever, eating and singing songs,

and playing games, and eating.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Just like we do here.

BUBBLES: Yup. It'llbe just like being inMr.

Righteous' neighborhood allthe time.

(Close

up. Slowly and breathily.) And it'll never,

ever be bedtime.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Isn't Jesus wonderful?

BUBBLES: The eat's meow.

(Moans softly.)

Mr. Righteous, I'm feeling his presence

again.

(A

knock at the

door.)

MR. RIGHTEOUS: Did you hear that, boys

and girls? (Pauses) I knew you did.

BUBBLES: Oh, I just know it's Him in this

time. (Feels around dress for pocket.)

Where did I put that compact?

MR. RIGHTEOUS: That's OK, Bubbles.

We're out of t ime now. But be sure to watch

tomorrow, boys and girls, when we'll all see

who's at the door here in Mr. Righteous'

Neighborhood.

BUBBLES: And don't forget to tell mommy

and daddy to get out to the nearest Bom-

again Family Bookstore and pick up my new

book, God's Answer to Fat: Trick Mirrors.

MR. RIGHTEOUS: (Smiles and waves.)

Bye-bye for now, boys and girls.

BUBBLES:

(Smiles and waves.)

Bye.

(They continue smiling and waving. Fade

out to theme music and credits.) ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mark Fara lives in Ohio with his

Significant Other and two children,

ages five and seven. His favorite

commedians are Steve Martin and Jim

and Tammy Bakker.

ANOTHERSADE

[cont'd from pg.13]

tive zealot forced the cancellation of those Epitaph

productions in 1813.

He died on December 2, 1814, at 10:00

P.M. without a murmur. Naturally, there

was the traditional assertion that he had a

deathbed conversion, but that cannot be

taken seriously. In his will, Sade gratefully

acknowledged his mistress, but his generos-

ity was quickly compromised by his family.

.He asked in his will to be buried without

ceremony of any kind. That request was

not honored either - he was buried with a

chapel service, candles, and chaplain. He

asked that his grave be covered with acorns

so that the spot will become green once

again ... and that the traces of my grave will

disappear from the face ofthe earth as Itrust

the memory of my name will fade from the

LE MARQUIS DE SADE minds of all people - except for those few

Austin, Texas April,1985

who in their minds and hearts have loved

me.

I M P I

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Prof. Maurice M. l..aBeUeholds a Ph.D.

in Comparative Literature. He

presently teaches in the Department

of English at Drake University in Des

Moines, Iowa. His work has been

published in both French and English

in scholarly journals throughout the

United States, Canada, England, and

France. His book on the French

Atheist Alfred Jarry (Alfred

Jarry,

Nihilism, and the Theatre of The

Absurd) appeared in 1981.

Page 17



~~/eI'105, W H Y Ai...I.. OF - = : : : : : : : J ~ IT NDT BeT7't A. ~

V;OR

I /l IDE-E.D, WHEAt: WDULD ~

TJilS

UNS£.E.Ml... '1

MOST/I.ITY PAI S£ ' i

Ii

M oP E 3AI lNce O

THIS

8RJ 1iT COWIT F IY

lO W

TOWA~IlS 17105£ OF

us

WITH

VIEW

OF THE MANY PosI11VE W I T H O U T OUR

HER/Tli6E.

OF

FA/nil FO J~I l WITHIN T1 iE~E . f tCCQMPl... I$HMt: :N7 S ,N\/i0/ . F~mil OIiTIN613fiCX 70 TJVfr VEIiY

I/I A.YflSeS~ ~y

A.E.t.IGION-?

IJIW 7'HIfr THE..8RA\£ PI~R./MS

AAANEO U P ON T H E f rl AY FI. ': >W E R ~

A

~ -

~

~,

.~

~r WliS

FflfTH TIiIiT

PLANTe .) ~ ~DJNEO HIiNes

70 ~ ~NTIL.

A fJ .OWeR N ( j OF l3£NEFICEN'r

me

SeE.DS OF MDRAt.rT'1 IN

rue

POJ..t. 11iE. WEEDS OF LOVE. AND GAACE SHfiJ.L

MflNCM

FE.R71~ SOIL Of

L/ElEAr., ,.

~LO Tl-l

MD SIN,

.&'ISkEO

co r

flCAOSS ~ J./WO 8

EAAlNG

PLOWED THE. E/iRTfI

w r r n

PIETY... IN

7 H1

SUNSHINE OF

T M e

fR,.UITS OF

6 Q O : S

6R.I :EN

WIfrEP,ED IT WITf/ A l6 H T t:. OU S V IR i( JE .

THiJ1118

TD D N E .

/WI) AU.'. '

>

CDMP N3S /ON ...

SlN8

/1AllELUJN·j.'

7llfvw.S/C

Page 18 April, 1985 American Atheist



Just what do Atheists want

to read about as Atheists?

What do they as Atheists

want to learn? Just what

kind ofpeople are Atheists?

Austin, Texas

The American Atheist wanted to know, so it conducted

an extensive survey of its readership in late 1984. The

question of what Atheists are was answered in the March

1985issue of the

American Atheist.

Commonly Atheists are

male, married, white, have children, and have been involved

in at least some higher education. But just what do these

individuals want to read about, want - as Atheists - to

know?

Naturally, those who work in The American Atheist

Center had some pre-conceived ideas as to what would be

discovered, principally because of the long term involve-

ment of the national personnel with the local Chapters.

Over the years, the staff had met literally thousands of

Atheists, received letters from a hundred times as many as

those to whom they had talked. The personnel at The

Center had built up some perceptions from those contacts.

They thought that the survey would reflect the concerns

which they had heard. In a large sense, the staff was correct.

But acting as the administration of a national office of a

much despised group brought some false concerns.

Performance

The American Atheist wanted to know ifitwere doing its

job, and a series ofspecific questions were asked concerned

with that. Out of approximately one thousand returns, 850

answered those questions. The percentage replies below

are based on those replies:

Do you feel that the American Atheist has substantially

increased your awareness and/or comprehension in any of

the following areas:

April, 1985

Page 19'



Understanding and defining Atheism

Yes - 86.72 percent No - 13.28percent

Understanding state/church separation

issues

Yes- 92.86 percent No - 7.14 percent

Recognizing religio-political methodolo-

gies

Yes - 89.41 percent No -10.58 percent

The nature of religion

Yes - 80.66 percent No - 19.34 percent

Gains in general historical knowledge

Yes - 90.43 percent No - 9.56 percent.

Better understanding of foreign cul-

tures

Yes- 68.62 percent No - 31.37 percent.

Better self-analysis

Yes...:....64.10 percent No - 35.90 percent

Some of the percentages became clearer

as the written replies were analyzed. For

example, the articles from Margaret Bhatty

on India and its culture had whetted reader's

in the requests for articles on Atheism in

other countries and on other continents.

The No answers were often attended by

remarks also. Some of these were: (1) No

to all; long time Atheist, not arrogant, you

simplycan't tellme anything, (2) No to all. I

know allthis already, I'm ready for action,

(3) I'm sixty-eight years old. It's good to see

it in print, collected together, but I know all

this.

In this section of the survey the single

most often made comment was, I thought I

was all alone. The only variation was when

a word or two was added, but the theme was

the same; I am not alone anymore, or

Now I know there are others such as I.

Ranking Regulars

In another section of the 1984 survey,

readers were asked to rank in the order of

their preference, the regular features and

columnists of the American Atheist.

In compilation, the answers were weigh-

ted and a scale of 190to 1900used, with 190

being the first choice by all concerned and

1900 the pits. The following is the list of

features and columns inorder of preference

and the points earned inthis ranking system:

Feature

Score

Editorial

(Jon G. Murray) 203

News and Comments,

310

Letters to the Editor

413

American Atheist Radio Series

443

Nature s Way

(Gerald Tholen) 511

Ask A.A. 523

AngryYoung Atheist

(Jeff Frankel) 584

Toward More Intelligence,

(R. Smith) 745

Report From India

(Margaret Bhatty) 789

The Atheist Next Door 846

The median for scoring was 855 points,

Page 20

and all of the above fen on the plus side of

that; the two features which did not were:

Potpourri

Poetry

1010

1406

The results of this ranking were of some

surprise to the editors. The single most

controversial feature writer - Jon G. Mur-

ray - was far and ahead the most popular.

This was particularly interesting as he is the

writer with the single most problems meet-

ing his deadlines. The two columnists whose

work appears most irregularly, Jeff Frankel

and Richard Smith, proved to be wellappre-

ciated. News and Comments, the most

hastily prepared section of the American

Atheist, was consistently reported as educa-

tional and rewarding. Allthese results willbe

carefully studied by the editors, and future

changes may reflect the preferences

ex-

pressed.

Favorites

And what recent American Atheist arti-

cles had hit the spot with readers? The

American Atheist felt that it was important

to know; itwould giveparticular examples of

the type ofwork which Atheists considered

pointedly interesting. So the question Inthe

past year, what articles in the American

Atheist have you particularly liked? was

included in the 1984survey.

More surprises were to be had in this

section. Repeatedly, articles dealing with

events or situations in other countries and

cultures were named. And despite the fact

that the readers are predominately male

(83.1 percent are men), women's issue

pieces were often named.

Of the articles published recently by the

American Atheist, the one most frequently

named as particularly liked was Sexual

Mutilations and Islam by Soledad de

Montalvo-Mielche (July 1984). What was

named second most liked inthe articles in

the year acculmulation was spread out al-

most equally among seventeen different

articles. They are listed alphabetically for

they were all greatly preferred ..

Advertising Dial-An-Atheist on Salt

Lake City Buses, by David Chris Allen,

from News and Comments. (Arecounting of

the fight to carry atheist advertising inpublic

buses in Salt Lake City.) August, 1984.

Atheism as Therapy by William Talley.

(A new approach to alcoholism.) Septem-

ber, 1984.

Clarence Darrow - American Athe-

ist from the Roots of Atheism series. (A

short biography.) April, 1984

Diderot,

from the Roots of Atheism ser-

ies. (A short biography.) July 1984.

Did Human Gods Evolve from Ape-

Gods?

by Brian Lynch (Discusses possibil-

April,1985

ity that animals may possess crude ideas and

primitive rituals.) July, 1984.

For Mature Audiences Only

by Jon G.

Murray. (The history of cinema and tele-

vision censorship in the U.S.) March, 1984.

The Great Irish Sting

by Frank Snider.

(Roman Catholic control of Ireland.) May,

1984.

Groucho Meets a Preacher

by Jeff

Frankel. (High humor at the expense of

religion.) February, 1984.

Happiness and the Atheist

by Lowell

Newby. (General comments on atheist

thought.) September, 1984.

Maiming of The Dillywhacker

by Rich-

ard W. Morris. (Circumcision.) December,

1982.

Matilda Joslyn Gage,

from the Roots of

Atheism series. (A short biography.) March,

1984.

Mental Circumcision,

from News and

Comments. (A report on the Accelerated

Christian Education schools.) September,

1984.

Politics and Religion in the Middle

East

by Dr. Alfred Lilienthal. (A speech

analyzing the continuing crisis in the Middle

East as given to the 1984American Atheist

Convention.) August, 1984.

The Pope and the Pendulum.

(An ana-

lysis of the Bishop's letter on Nuclear

D is-

armament.) February, 1984.

, Sex As An Argument for Atheism by

Ben Edward Akerley. (A speech from the

1984American Atheist Convention concern-

ing Christianity's repressive effects on sex-

uality), August, 1984.

Women and Christianity by Josephine

K.

Henry, from the Atheist Masters series.

(A criticism of Christian attitudes toward

females.) July, 1984.

Women and the Law of Karma by

Margaret Bhatty. (Women's lives in Hindu

tradition and suttee.) August, 1984.

Also reflected in this list is the same

general desire for the history of atheist

thought and personalities which was por-

trayed in the free answer portion of the

survey.

Good Ideas

A major portion of the 1984 survey was

left open so that readers would be free to

add their very valuable comments. And

what was found from this effort?

Readers want to know about old-timer

Atheists, famous Atheists ofhistory, current

Atheists, women Atheists, atheist leaders,

the fights for atheist rights. They want to

read articles about Atheism and Atheists

written by Atheists, past and present. They

want expert answers in many categories by

experts who are Atheists. ( An embryolog-

ist should write about the fetus. An arch-

aeologist should write about the ark search

on Mt. Ararat. Where's our expert on

American Atheist



comparative religious studies? Did one

atheist scientist get a chance to look at the

Shroud of Turin?

The survey has netted about eighty pages

of instructions, desires, wants, need-to-

knows, and please-investigates. Readers are

anxious to learn. They want to know Athe-

ism's place inthe stream of history. And they

want to know, objectively, more about reli-

gion. (''Take one denomination a month and

feature it. How did it start? Who are

these people [religious leaders such as Cal-

vin, Luther]? Give us a short biography. )

And, then, most wail: How can we, as

Atheists, cope with the increasing encroach-

ments? The Bible,objectively, isof interest.

( Who indeed wrote it? How did it e-

volve? Is there any original anywhere? )

Readers want book reviews and many

asked if the

American Atheist

knew of this

book or that: George Elison's Deus Des-

troyed,

Gore Vidal's

Creation,

Homer

Smith's

Man and His Gods,

and many more.

Would the

American Atheist

please look up

the history ofPoland and Unitarianism? Has

information on Catherine Crane Gartz

(whose family owned Crane Plumbing Fix-

tures) who in 1937 openly proclaimed her

Atheism been found?

It will take the

American Atheist

twenty

years and a staff of twenty people to get

around to all of it, but it will.

Constructive Criticisms

It would not be remiss to say that ninety-

nine percent of the readers love the

Ameri-

can Atheist

and The American Atheist Cen-

ter. But they still rage at the

American

Atheist

for its faults. ( Find a proofreader

You are a mess, but keep after it; no one

else is doing it Your cartoons stink. )

Readers want Atheism to have even a stron-

ger voice. Their criticisms are almost totally

constructive. Their suggestions are excel-

lent. ( Distribute to schools. You lack

financial power because you have not fo-

cused on getting it. Growth plans, stategy

and tactics need formulated. Start a

monthly 'Open Forum' on topics of con-

tinuing interest such as tactics, P.R., stra-

tegy. Be careful. Don't become victims.

Use massive direct-mail. Our own gov-

ernment is resisting our nation's constitu-

tion Let us Atheists do the 'defining.' We

can't let the theists tell us what we are. But,

the most used single sentence of reply was

Keep up the good work, as you went

about your further ranking.

And then, there was the one percent who

hate everything the American Atheists does

or represents. They lashed out at Jon

Murray. ( He is establishing a cult. ) At

Gerald Tholen. ( He is bitter. He is vin-

dictive. ) At any mention of nuclear freeze.

( I'm pro-nuke. I don't want to hear about

it. ) At Madalyn O'Hair. ( She is an ugly fat

slut. She is a misanthrope. ) At Atheism.

( I hate the word. Let's drop the word and

go for Freethinker. ) At Atheism's stance.

( Don't ridicule religion. We must respect

religious beliefs. ) At any objective analysis

ofthe Middle East. ( You favor that bastard,

Lillienthal. You are anti-semites. ) At any-

thing else they could criticize: the paper

used in the magazine, the typestyle, its di-

mensions, the writers.

It was very easy at times to see whence

the readers came. As the survey was further

analysed, if there was a short burst of

energetic language about the need to live

with religion, a check would find that almost

inevitably itwas a comment from an Atheist

living with or married to a Christian. The

figures, matched with the statistics, were

alarming as over one-third of the readers

were in unions where religion has the po-

tential of being a disruptive factor. Atheist

couples tended, generally, toward taking all

religions head on. When a veritable diatribe

against religion appeared most often this

was from an older person. Atheists appar-

ently become more radical and more angry

with age.

cfJore~ ,

The 1984 survey also involved a pre-

ference question: Do you have a definite

preference on whether your

American Athe-

ist

is mailed with a 'plain wrapper' (with just

the American Atheist Press logo and return

address) or with an envelope with' American

Atheist' spelled out? The questions was

asked because American Atheist, taking

pride inthe identification of Atheism, began

to use American Atheist as the return

name for all of its mailings many years ago.

The resulting hassles which it had and

continues to have withChristians working in

the United States Postal Service has been

overwhelming. Mail is not delivered, lost,

returned, destroyed, misdirected, delayed,

or mutilated. Perhaps the envelope which

had 217 staples put through it willsuffice as

an example. Obscenities and religious slo-

gans are not infrequently stamped on mail

received. Book orders, for many years,

simply could not get through the Chicago

Post Office to the recipient. In face of these

increasing problems, American Atheists felt

that it might need to change that proud

banner of defiance, the words American

Atheist as a return address on the en-

velopes. And, of course, during the twenty-

Austin, Texas

two years of American Atheists' operation,

various individual members had complained

about the use of American Atheist on the

envelopes. After lengthy discussion, it was

decided that a question concerned with that

usage should be put in the survey. Mean-

while, as the postal situation worsened, the

envelope return was reluctantly changed.

Now the return name on the magazine is

AAP. and the return address of the

Insiders' Newsletter

is S.O.S_ , the initials

of the Society of Separationists, the parent

organization of the American Atheist Cen-

ter and the American Atheist Press.

When the results from the survey were

finally counted, it was found that

American

Atheist

readers were not as concerned with

this situation as anticipated. Over one-half

(51.34 percent) checked off No; I do not

care about the envelope at all. More than a

quarter of the respondents (26.55 percent)

wanted American Atheist on the envelope

big and bold. And less than a quarter (22.11

percent) felt that a plain wrapper would be

preferable. Some individuals expanded on

their answers, usually commenting that they

just wanted to get the mailand that anything

that defeated that purpose should be al-

layed. The four most compelling reasons for

the choice of plain envelopes were: (I) We

should make our own decisions about the

amount we wish to advertise our views,

which often depends on time and circum-

April, 1985

stances, (2) I live in a Cuban area. The

word Atheist isdangerous, (3) I am oldand

in a red neck community. When someone

else gets mymail, Iam introuble, and (4) In

Utah there is a religious clause in the apart-

ment rental contract.

Meanwhile, from January to March 1985,

the American Atheist Center had sent ap-

proximately thirty-five complaints of non-

delivery (for one reason or another) to the

Austin Post Office. The Postmaster in that

city is determined that atheist mail

shall

be

handled like any other and does her best to

see that it is so. Meeting with officials of the

American Atheist Center, taking them on

tours of the Post Office, she had guaranteed

that the mail would move in and out of

Austin. (Last year, one entire bag of The

Center's mail was found in the lobby of a

building in the downtown area, by a janitor

who was cleaning the building.) There is no

way that fivehundred or more clerks can be

individually watched.

Following the advice of a large mail hand-

ling firm, The Center decided it was more

important to get the

Insider's Newsletter,

the

American Atheist,

and book purchases

to individuals than anything else. The Cen-

ter will thereore continue with its policy of

using plain wrappers. Perhaps one day,

American Atheists willbe able to return to a

proud and proper identification for mail.

Page 21.



Over and Over

There were two questions, both con-

cerned with psychology, that the thousand

readers who responded asked at least one

thousand times:

What's wrong with them, that they be-

lieve?

and

What's right with us ? How did we, as

Atheists, manage to get out of the religious

trap?

The questions about theists were many:

How can they accept myths?

What do people get from religion?

Why do they cling to these horrors?

What makes human minds work to

accept absurd, illogical ideas?

Why are they, substantially, mindless?

Why do people need psychological

crutches?

Why is there, to these people, a per-

ceived need for religion?

When it came to themselves, the reader's

questions were other. They allwant to reach

out and touch one another. They want to

know how each other lives, works, plays. It

is important that they all know how they

communicate, what their problems are with

religion, how others handle them. What is

your human interest story? How did you get

to Atheism? What are you going to do now

since you are there? What do you think of

every issue of the day? What are the trials

and tribulations of contemporary Atheists?

How do you uncover other Atheists around

you?

Readers are desperate to explore the

thinking, the habits, the lives of each other.

The Letters to the Editor are just the first

timid outreaches to see ifa name inprint will

cause the wrath of a god - or the wrath ofa

Christian neighbor - to descend. Readers

have must more to say than what has

appeared. They want to shout their opinions

to the rooftops. They don't want to be a/one

anymore They ask, How can we come out

of the closet when our families are relig-

ious? How can we find other Atheists,

communicate with them ina meaningful and

in-depth way? How does one manage day

to day livingamong theists? I want to hear

from another Atheist, with experience, so I

know how to cope.

And in all of the comments there were

more than a thousand questions. How can

we find each other? How can we start small

groups? How can I talk to my neighbors?

How can wecommunicate? American Athe-

ists have an unquinchable thirst for know-

ledge of one another. And the statistics

discussed in the March 1984 issue of the

American Atheist tell them a great deal

about themselves. But all of that is only the

beginning. If they have a good, strong,

atheist organization standing somewhere in

the United States, pumping out information

as it can, Ameican Atheists are just about

ready to reach out one-to-the other.

Perhaps Reagan ispushing Atheists to the

brink of fear - they damn him enough for

the tone he has set in the nation. But they

are dangereously near to opening up, reach-

ing out, working together, trying to under-

stand the position inwhich we findourselves

in this nation. They are amazed, confused,

angry at the sudden surge of mindless

religious dominance. But never do they

think of turning to main-line religions for

help. Thev know the answer, really, isAthe-

ism. ~

S e em s t o m e t h at i f t h e y c a n r e c a l l c ar s f o r n o t l i v i n a U P

t o t h ei r p ro m is es t h ey o u ah t t o d o t h e s am e w it h p o l i t ic ian s .

s ale s m e n . a n d T U ev an ael i s ts .

Page 22

April, 1985

American Atheist



Robert H. Countess

IM M ORALITY AND CHRISTIANITY

W

illiam B. Whitworth's wellwritten ar-

ticle in the November, 1984 issue of

the

American Atheist

raised anew that ter-

ribly uncomfortable question which Chris-

tians wish would go away - but never does.

It is this: If god is both an all-powerful

sovereign and a loving god, why does he

supervise over wicked, hurtful, and immoral

actions?

The standard reply has been: But god

only allows these; he doesn't cause them.

Adolescents, of course, could spot the

question-begging weakness of such a cop-

out non-answer. Clearly, one can recognize

that if god is not the ultimate source of all

created activities and concrete matter, then

god isnot truly the creator

par excellence

he

is usually presented to be. The Apostle Paul

understood this when he wrote inEphesians

1:11that god works allthings accord to the

plan of his will.

On the other hand, ifman is the ultimate

source ofany action, then Christians (Jews)

have two ultimate sovereigns in a single

universe - an intriguing dualism indeed

Recently Iwas raising this uncomfortable

problem for a pastor I have known many

years, a Presbyterian who prides himself on

being Reformed, on being a Calvinist. Cal-

vinism is the most perfect expression of

biblicalChristianity is his commitment. My

friend asserted that God is the ultimate

source of all - even immoral actions - but

man is responsible for his own sinful actions

because god says so It is obvious that this

pastor wanted to have his cake and to eat it

also.

I referred then to a scholarly Calvinist

author of the same Presbyterian denomina-

tion (Presbyterian Church in America),

whom I have long admired for his gutsy

embrace of the fullimplications of Calvinist

theology. He is Gordon Haddon Clark,

whose PhD is in philosophy from the Uni-

versity of Pennsylvania. He was for many

years the Chairman of the Department of

Philosophy at Butler University and his

pristine position among American funda-

mentalists has made him a figure to be

reckoned with.

Clark's major work, in my opinion, is

Religion, Reason, and Revelation (Presby-

terian &Reformed Pub. Co., 1961), and the

key chapter is the last one, God and Evil

(pages 194-241). My personal acquintance

with Dr. Clark over nearly twenty years now

has revealed a no-nonsense attitude toward

the tough questions ofreligion. Clark sserts:

Austin, Texas

God's decretive will . . . causes every

event. Then: It may seem strange at first

that God would decree an immoral act, but

the Bible shows that he did.

Many folks find it strange indeed

Now, the point ofmy writing this article is

not to explore how Clark goes about trying

to make his immorality-decreeing god into

some sort ofmoral deity. Interested readers

can explore that on their own and may

possibly conclude with my estimation that

Clark outdoes Orwellian Newspeak when

appealing to logic for support. Mypoint isto

emphasize that Clark has faithfully and

accurately presented the nucleus of biblical

religion. Jehovah-God - literally Jehovah-

Elohim (Jehovah-Gods) - is in fact in the

Bible the sort ofgod that Clark has faithfully

defended for nearly eighty years of his life.

The biblical god is in fact Jesus' god, St.

Paul's god, Luther's and Calvin's, Billy

Graham's and Oral Roberts' and the Pope's

deity as well. He is the one true deity of all

the Judeo-Christian orthodoxies.

But Gordon Clark has the back bone of

conviction and intellect to assert forcefully

and clearly the all-determinative nature of

this god. The Judeo-Christian reactionaries

have, of course, moved away from this

jealous, vengeful, decreeing god of whom

Gordon Clark asserts: I wish very frankly

and pointedly to assert that if a man gets

drunk and shoots his family, itwas the willof

God that he should do so. The Scriptures

leave no room for doubt . . . The reac-

tionaires opt for a loving, fatherly deity who

is powerful but who, yet, is not an absolute

powerhouse.

It is my opinion that Clark's bold, honest

representation of Judeo-Christian thought

invites some sort of canonization for s lint-

hood ina Nobel Prize in the religious arena.

He the quintessential Jew, Christian, Mos-

lem all rolled into one.

I used to agree with Clark. I avidly read

and re-read his finalchapter inRRR and tried

it out on unsuspecting opponents - and

with great success. How Ienjoyed smashing

an opponent's weak view of God What a

high At the same time, I had convinced

myself that I was doing this out of love for

both God and the smashee.

Multitudes of us former Calvinists are out

here ina wretched world ofsuffering human-

ity. We no longer accept the word games of a

Gordon Clark. We may admire his guts, but

we refuse to bow before his malignant deity,

because his God is untimatley the sole

April, 1985

responsible source of every phenomenon in

the cosmos. His God allegedly loves and

showers blessings on the elect; on the rest,

He pours our His hatred

(d.

Romans 9:13ff.).

Clark's God covers all the bases: He is

benevolent, malevolent, and absolute. And,

with such a God, there is no need for a devil,

because the two beings coalesce into one.

Whoever remarked, Your God is my

Devil captured Clark's God indeed. Like-

wise, Iam reminded of the little child who in

Sunday School learned about Jehovah com-

manding the Israelites (the chosen people of

God) to tear up the pregnant bellies of

women (i.e., on the spot induced abortions )

to dash the brains of little children against

walls, and to annihilate everyone else, ham-

string horses and more: the little boy said:

''That God is dirty bully

Today, inour sophisticated religiousworld

of megabuck programs and building com-

plexes in the name of God, we see that most

religionists have divided Clark's God into

two antagonists: on the one hand there is a

God who loved the world so much that he

sent His son Jesus to die for people's sins

(the latter being, of course, decreed by

God ); on the other hand, a hostile Devil

who opposes both the work and the word of

God. The responses from audiences who

get involved in this great conflict on the side

of God have been enormously successful for

.the building of huge power and financial

religious empires.

Preachers tell us how to have happy

homes, material prosperity, obedient child-

ren, safe streets and a holy nation: fear God

Hell and the wrath of God are often played

down, but they lurk just under the surface of

the Gospel pronouncements and reveal the

real God who decrees all things nefarious.

The orthodox Grahms, Schullers, Falwells,

Roberts, Popes and Rabbis all accentuate

the positive.

Thank God (sic) for Gordon Clark ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Robert H. Countess holds a PhD inNew

Testament Greek from Bob Jones

University (1966) and an M.L.S. from

Georgetown University. He is a writer

and lecturer. His book, The Jehovah s

Witnesses New Testament appeared

in 1982.

Page 23



TH E PRO B IN G M IN D / F rank R Z indler

WHAT IS DEATH?

I

was probably the last college biology

course I would ever teach. The first

laboratory session began inthe same way as

had almost every other one Ihad taught over

the course of seventeen years.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is Modern

Biology, a course devoted to the scientific

investigation of the nature, origin, and evo-

lution of life. This is the laboratory session,

and it lasts three hours. Instead of actual,

hands-on experiments, today we shall in-

dulge in some

thought experiments.

Since

we shall spend the rest of the semester on

life, today, by contrast, let's talk about

death. What is death, anyhow?

What follows is a distillation of the discus-

sion that ensued, with arguments from pre-

vious years being mixed in as necessary.

A Class Discussion

TOM:

Death iswhen

your

heart stops beating.

ZINDLER: I see. Does that mean that poor

Smedly here

[petting a potted philoden-

dron]

is dead? He's never even had a heart

- let alone had it stop beating

TOM:

Well, I thought

we

were talking about

people.

ZINDLER:Biologydeals withalllivingthings,

plants and microbes as well as animals.

TOM:

I don't know much about plants. I'd

rather talk about people. I think a

person

is

dead when his heart stops beating.

ZINDLER: What ifa doctor starts his heart

up again? Cardiopulmonary resuscitation

happens all the time.

TOM:

Well, he's been deadfor awhile. Then

he's

come

back

to

life.

ZINDLER: What ifhis heart isremoved sur-

gically and he's kept going on an aritificial

heart-lung machine?

TOM:

For practical

purposes,

he's a

goner.

I think he's dead.

ZINDLER:

[Holding an imaginary micro-

phone

up to

an imaginary patient

on

a

coronary replacement unit]

Excuse me, sir.

Tom here tells me you're dead. Is that really

so?

[Ghostly voice replying]

Would I

be

doing the

Times cross-

word puzzle if I were dead? The

rumors ofmy demise have

been

great-

ly exaggerated.

Page 24

ZINDLER: Tom, this dead man here seems

to disagree with you.

[laughter]

CAROL:

I don't think the heart has any-

thing to do with it. The heart isjust a

pump.

A

man isdead when his

soul

leaves his body.

ZINDLER: Does that happen instantane-

ously, or is it a gradual process? How do we

know when the soul has left?

CAROL:

Instantly. Either you're alive

or

you're dead. At the instant your

soul

leaves,

you're dead.

JIM:

What about a guy who's been in a

coma for a month? Is his

soul

still there, and

how do you know it?

CAROL:

I think he still has a soul.

ZINDLER: That means we can't disconnect

him from his life-support system? What will

we tell his heirs who are ready to inherit his

estate? How willwe convince them that this

guy stillhas a soul?

HAROLD:

I just read in

The Enquirer

that

they

once

did an experiment where they

took a guy who was dying and put him

on

a

scale. The

moment

he died and his

soul

left

him, he lost weight.

JIM:

How did they know the change of

weight was due to the

loss

of the

soul?

Maybe he just became

more

dehydrated.

Maybe he just lost bladder control

HAROLD:

I don't know. They must have

had

some

way of knowing when his soul left

him.

ZINDLER:

[Speaking

to

entire class]

How

would we know in advance how much

weight change to expect ifthe soul is leaving?

How could we know if we should expect a

weight change of an ounce or something

less? Ifthe lungs collapse a bit and some air is

lost, might that affect the body weight as

much as the loss of a soul? How heavy is a

soul, anyway?

CAROL:

Idon't think you can weigh a soul. I

don't think you can detect it. It's just there,

that's all.

JIM:

Then how willyou ever know if

some-

one is

dead

or

not? I don't think there issuch

a thing as a soul. I think life and death have

something to do with chemical changes.

CAROL:

You'll know when it's your turn

April, 1985

Then you'll find out

ZINDLER: Let's assume, for the sake of

argument, there

is

such a thing as a soul.

How and when did we get it?

HAROLD:

The Catholic Church says

we

get

our

souls at the moment of fertilization,

when

we become

a fertilized

egg.

ZINDLER: How many souls does single

zygote (fertilized egg) receive? And if the

zygote receives one or more souls, does that

mean that the zygote was dead before it got

a soul? Do souls enter dead eggs?

CAROL: The zygote receives just

one soul,

of

course

ZINDLER: If that is so, then what happens

when the zygote splits into two separate

daughter cells and each becomes a baby?

Identical twins? Is one a person and the

other a soulless zombie?

JIM:

And what about the egg receiving a

soul? If the loss of a soul makes something

dead, then wouldn't a cellwhich gains a soul

have to

be

dead before it receives it?

HAROLD:

I think there are different levels

of aliveness. Before it gets a soul, the

egg

is

just alive. After itgets the

soul

it's a

person,

a human being.

ZINDLER: We seem to have gotten bogged

down on the problem of when an individual

gets his soul. Let's consider the evolutionary

aspect of the problem. When in the course

ofevolution did our ancestors get ensouled?

Janet? You haven't said anything yet. What

do you think?

JANET: Our

ancestors got souls at that

point

in evolution when they became hu-

man.

RUTH:

That's circular reasoning. Besides,

we

have

no

way of knowing when these

so-called souls came into

our

ancestors. All

we

have are skeletal remains.

You

can't tell

from a skeleton if i t once had a soul

or ...

JANET:

Well the soul had to

come in some-

where. Maybe Neanderthal Man.

ZINDLER: Keep in mind that evolution in

the past took place pretty much the same as

it does at present. Each generation at the

time of, say Peking Man, differed from its

parental generation no more than you differ

from your parents. Imagine Hank over here

one morning after breakfast suddenly an-

American Atheist



nouncing to his parents:

Eat your hearts out, folks. You're

justa couple of animals. I, however,

am a full-fledgedhuman being. have a

soul and willgo to a groovy garden in

the sky when I die. You two are just

going to rot like wet turkey feathers

when you kick off.

Do you think that sort of scene actually

happened once upon a time?

SAMANTHA:

Like, you know, I've

been

kinda, like

into

Eastern Religions lately, and

I think

we never

got

our souls in

the

course

of evolution. I think all living things have

souls.

I think

our

ancestors allthe way back

had

souls

of some

sort.

ZINDLER: Even Smedly here?

[petting the

plant

again]

SAMANTHA:

Hey, man, they've shown

that plants have

brain

waves Like they

can

tell

you don't like them.

RUTH: Brain

waves? They don't have

brains How

can

they have

brain

waves?

SAMANTHA:

Well, they produce electrical

waves of

some

sort. All living things have

feelings.

JIM:

Prove

it

ZINDLER:Let's come at the problem from a

different angle. Hank, when you cash your

chips in, just who and which body isit that's

going to die, anyway?

HANK:

I don't get

it.

What

do

you mean,

which body? I only have

one

body.

ZINDLER: Really? Is it the same body with

which you were born?

HANK: Of course it is

ZINDLER: No fooling?You were born witha

beard? You were born six-foot one?

HANK:

No, of

course not ...

ZINDLER: Can you show the class any part

of the body you with which were born?

HANK:

Well ... Iwas born with some of the

cells of this body, and they grew and ...

RUTH:

I think what Mr. Zindler's driving

at

is

the fact that the actual atoms that make

up

your body today

are not

the same atoms

that composed

it

when you were born. I

read somewhere that all the atoms

in

your

body are

replaced

every

couple

of years.

ZINDLER: Why didn't I say it that clearly?

Yes, indeed, you are made up of a different

set of atoms than the ones with which you

were born. As a matter of fact, all the atoms

ofyour body are recycled from the bodies of

other people and other organisms. If some

madman rushed in here now and blew up

Hank and me away to kingdom come, parts

ofother people would be going with us at the

same time. Some of them would be people

who died - whatever that word means -

Austin, Texas

twenty or one hundred years ago.

JIM:

You're begging the

question

ifyou

use

the word

die.

We haven't defined

it

yet.

ZINDLER: You're absolutely right. I just

want to add that since most atoms are for all

purposes immortal, they just keep recycling.

Almost surely, every atom in your bodies

nowwas once part of the body of a dinosaur.

When I die, does that mean that a dinosaur

willalso be dying? Wait Don't answer that

question

[laughter]

Actually, this reminds me of a problem the

medieval theologians used to worry about.

Consider a baby born to cannibal parents.

The kid has never eaten anything but human

flesh. He dies, and comes the day of resur-

rection. Whose body is resurrected? If the

cannibal is resurrected, the people he has

eaten lose out. Ifthe lunches and dinners are

resurrected, the cannibal loses out Recy-

cling theology is not an easy subject.

HANK:

All this recycling

business

has

me

confused. I myself

am

recycling. What has

happened

to

all the other

me's

that have

existed

in

the bodies I've inhabited between

the time I was born and

now?

I'm almost

twenty years old. If matter recycles

com-

pletely every five years, say, then

at

least

three me's have died

since

I was born -

or at

least they have somehow disappeared.

But why

do

I stillfeel like me?

ZINDLER: Whoa I'm supposed to ask the

hard questions here It sounds to me that

you identify more with your mind than with

your body. Itsounds as ifyou feel that your

mind is the real you and your body isjust its

receptacle.

HANK:

Yeah, I

do

sort of think that way.

ZINDLER: But hasn't your mind changed

also? Can you remember the mind with

which you were born ?

HANK: No ...

I can't remember much of

anything from early childhood.

ZINDLER: Oh dear, you've lost a mind also

How many minds do you think you've lost in

the last twenty years?

HANK:

I think Ijust lost another

one

when I

signed

up

for this class

[laughter]

But I thought

we

were

discussing

the ques-

tion

what

is

death? Death

is

the opposite

of life.

[laughter]

ZINDLER: Now we're getting somewhere.

CAROL:

We are? It seems

to me

we're

totally lost

ZINDLER: Let's approach the problem from

a different angle. Hank says death is the

opposite of life.What kind of opposites are

lifeand death? Does lifediffer from death in

the way 'on' differs from 'off or in the way

April,1985

'hot' differs from 'cold'? Jack? What do you

think?

JACK:

When you die, you get coid.

So

I'd

say hot-cold . .

ZINDLER: What ifyou die by being burned

at the stake - the way a lot of local

politicians would liketo see me go? That isn't

exactly cold, is it?

CAROL:

It's on-off The

instant

your

soul

leaves you, you're off. You're dead.

SAMANTHA:

I don't think either

opinion is

correct. Idon't think there

is

such

a

thing

as

death. Like, I think you are just trans-

formed.

ZINDLER: Maybe we can settle this issue

quickly and democratically. Let's vote on it.

Let's see a show of hands. How many for

on-off? How many for hot -cold?

[counting]

It appears we have eleven hot-colds, ten on-

offs, and Samantha abstains. So that settles

it. Life differs from death as hot differs from

cold.

HAROLD:

Wait

a minute Just

what's the

diference between on-off and hot-cold, any-

way? I'm confused.

ZINDLER: Ruth? Can you enlighten Harold

on this point?

RUTH:

Well,

inan

on-off universe, there are

only two possible states:

on or

off. There

can be no

in-between

condition.

In

a

hot-

cold universe, you

can

have

a

lot of

in-

between states besides hot and

cold.

ZINDLER: Very good. But I'd liketo know at

what temperature hot becomes cold. Jim?

At what temperature do things become

cold?

JIM:

There

is no

such temperature. I mean,

it's

arbitrary

at

what temperature you think

things become cold. If you're heating

a

rooming

house, 'cold' will be

a

different

temperature than

it

would be if you're

run-

ning a

frozen sperm bank

ZINDLER: Do you mean to tell the on-offer

that you, as a hot-colder, think the dividing

line between lifeand death is as arbitrary as

that between hot and cold?

JIM:

Exactly. It's absolutely relative.

Or is it

precisely

imprecise?

[groans]

CAROL: That's

crazy Before

you

get shot

in

the head, you're alive.

An instant

after

a

bullet blows your brains

out,

you're dead.

There's nothing relative

or

arbitrary about

that.

ZINDLER: Would you say, Carol, that a

man walking allalone, at night, inthe Sahara

Desert, having a heart attack one hundred

feet away from a pack of rabid hyenas is

dead?

CAROL:

Yes, for all practical purposes,

Page 25



he's dead.

ZINDLER:You're sure he's dead?

CAROL: Yes.

ZINDLER: You would agree, then, that the

same man having the same heart attack in

the midst of the Coronary Intensive Care

Unit at Albany Medical College Hospital,

during a world conference of cardiac resus-

citation experts, is also dead?

CAROL:

Well, I don't ...

ZINDLER:It's the same guy, the same heart

attack. As you say, there's nothing relative

or arbitrary about death.

RUTH: The question of whether or not this

guy's dead or not depends to a very high

degree upon the circumstances. It is rela-

tive. The question is, how much disinte-

gration or break -down can we suffer, yet be

repaired intime. If we disintegrate beyond

the level repairable with the technology at

hand, we are dead.

JIM:

Exactly. The

guy

in the desert had

no

chance. Whether or not we judge him to be

dead at the moment of the heart attack, it is

that it's only down-hill from there on: no

reversal islikely. Inthe coronary unit, on the

other hand, the heart attack can be viewed

as a temporary low point, with a high like-

lihood of recovery.

RUTH: Death depends upon our point in

time as well as space. The guy could have

been at the exact same spot inA lbany two

hundred yers ago. No cardiac resuscitation

equipment existed then, and he would have

been about as dead as he was in the

Sahara.

ZINDLER:How many people stillbelieve life

and death are on-offopposites?

[counting again]

Down to three? Three die-hards?

[groans]

CAROL: Religion and law have always

dealt with life and death as being on-off

opposites. Either a person has a soul or he

doesn't. You can't have a partial

soul.

Either

something is a person or it isn't. You can't

have a partial person. Either you've com-

mitted a murder or you haven't. You can't

be guilty of 2.6 murders Either you're hu-

man

or

you're an animal

or

something. You

can't be part human and part something

else.

ZINDLER: Really?How do you interpret the

tissue-culture experiments where they take

human cells and mouse cells and cause them

to fuse, producing hybrid cells which then

proceed to multiply. What kind of culture

results? Isita man or a mouse? Each cellhas

both human and mouse chromosomes.

CAROL: I never heard of that. But I don't

think that proves much of anything. Life and

death are still opposites like on and off.

Page 26

ZINDLER: Very well. Let's perform a

thought experiment. Let's take poor old

Tom over there, and let's pretend to killhim

in slow metion. Tom, come over and sit on

the demonstration bench where the class

can watch you die.

[Sheepishly, Tom gets up, walks to the

bench, hops up on top of it, and sits

Buddha- likefacing the class.]

Watch carefully, Carol. Iwant you to tellthe

class the exact time at which Tom dies, the

exact point ar which he switches from 'on' to

'off.

All right now. Let's imagine that Tom is

actually sitting in a giant glass cylinder. The

cylinder is filled with water, and Tom -

sitting here inhis birthday suit - isfitted out

with a respirator which allows him to breathe

under water.

As you watch Tom in the fish-bowl, you

notice thai his hair is all coming off and his

skin isstarting to float away. That's because

this isn't just water inwhich he is immersed.

It's actually a solution ofenzymes - special

enzymes that can dissolve the intercellular

glue which holds his cells together to form

his body.

Tom quite literally is becoming unglued

before your very eyes. Ifyou look carefully

through the mats ofdrifting hair and dermal

sludge, you can see Tom's individual musc-

les - red and shiny - and the blood vessels,

and the subcutaneous fat deposits ...

JANET: Gross This is disgusting

ZINDLER: ... notice how he seems to be

staring simultaneously at everyone, now

that he has lost his eyelids ...

JANET: I think I'm going to be sick

ZINDLER: Well, Carol? Is Tom still alive?

CAROL: Of course he is. You've only

removed his hair and skin.

ZINDLER: Being careful not to dissolve

holes in any blood vessels, we now dissolve

away all the muscles in his legs and arms.

Tom's life as a gymnast is over. Is he still

alive?

CAROL:

Certainly. Lots ofpeople livewith-

out legs and arms.

ZINDLER: Tom? What do you think? Are

you still alive? Oh I forgot to tell the class

that Tom can't talk under water. To assure

his ability to communicate with us under

these odd circumstances, I trained him

ahead of time to be able to transmit Morse

code directly from his brain. By alternating

between alpha and beta electrical rhythms,

he can send messages to us. Let's stick a

recording electrode needle in his brain and

see what he has to say.

[walking over to an EEG machine and

pretending to read a message from the

recording paper strip]

The message reads, You call this living?

It appears as though Tom has some doubt

April, 1985

as to whether or not he is alive. Ifa man can

doubt, can he be dead?

As more of Tom's muscles and fat tissues

dissolve away, let us hook his circulatory

system up to an artificial kidney, heart, and

lung machine, so that whatever isleft ofhim

at any moment can get oxygen, get rid of

wastes, and receive nutrients which we can

supply in pure chemical form to the blood.

Why don't we remove the leg and arm

bones? They're just dangling there in an

unsightly manner, and he doesn't need them

anymore anyhow. Is he still alive?

CAROL: Yes.As Isaid, lots ofpeople get on

fine without arms and legs.

ZINDLER: Well, Tom, I hate to do this to

you, but the reproductive organs have got to

go But looking the way you do now, you

really have no likelihood of finding employ-

ment for them anyway.

MIKE: They were unemployed before the

experiment

[Fraternity brothers snort and snicker]

ZINDLER: What do you know? At the same

time he lost his reproductive organs, Tom

lost his kidneys, urinary bladder, body mus-

culature, and digestive tract Tom, are you

still in there?

[reading the EEG paper strip]

His answer seems to be rather short ... just

four letters long ... just one four-letter word

followed by an exclamation point ...

[laughter]

Tom, it's unbecoming for a dead man to use

foul language

CAROL: This is silly. You can go and

remove everything except his brain and he'll

still

be

alive.

ZINDLER: Your wish ismy command. But is

it O.K. to leave his eyeballs attached to the

optic nerves and to leave his middle and

inner ear structures intact?

CAROL: Be my guest. But lacking eye mus-

cles, his eyes can't do him much good. They

just bob about in the solution. He can't see

in 3-D.

ZINDLER: You seem to know quite a bit

about vision.

CAROL: My father is an optometrist

ZINDLER: Ifwe move a book past an eye at

just the right speed and just the right dis-

tance, he can still read - proof positive that

he's still alive. Tom's brain, eyes, and ears

are just suspended now in our special solu-

tion. Blood still supplies the necessities

through the tubes running from the

life -

support machines to the brain arteries. Tom

can hear, and Tom can see. Tom can still

remember. Is Tom still alive? Is Tom still

Tom?

HAROLD: He's still alive, but I don't think

he's Tom anymore. I mean, he doesn't have

American Atheist



his body anymore. How can he still

be

Tom?

CAROL:

Why does he need his body?

He

still has all his memories.

ZINDLER:Ah, yes. 'Tis memories that make

the man ... That being the case, we can

chop off his eye-stalks ...

JANET:

Oh, yukk

He

must

be

dead now.

ZINDLER: Not at all He can still hear, you

know. He's been listening to our discussion

all along. Let's see what he thinks at this

point.

[examining EEG strip)

Tsk, tsk He can't seem to manage any

words at all more than four letters long ...

[laughter)

Idon't know ifthe class realizes it, but there

are large parts of Tom's brain for which he

really has no use at this point. All the parts

that control muscle movement and physical

coordination. He doesn't need them ... zap

Tom reallydoesn't need more than twenty

percent or so of his brain that stores his

memories, ifI understand Carol correctly.

CAROL:

Well, I didn't realize ...

ZINDLER:Of course you're absolutely right.

AllTom needs are his memories. Memories

make the man, as we already observed. But

does he need allhismemories? Ifany ofthem

are missing, is Tom still Tom?

CAROL:

People forget things all the time.

That doesn't make them dead.

JIM:

But there's

a

limit. And certain mem-

ories

are

more

important than others -

as

far

as

personal identity

is

concerned. What

ifhe forgets he likes girls?What ifhe forgets

his name?

ZINDLER: What ifwe remove all the nerve

circuits involved in memory storage except

for the circuitry needed for conscious recall

ofjust one memory: the memory ofthe taste

of burnt toast. How will Tom's memory,

when activated, be identifiable as

his

mem-

ory of burnt toast? How will it differ from

anyone else's memory? Ifthat is allthat's left

of Tom, is Tom left at all?

RUTH:

Tom

as a person

isdead, but lifestill

exists. There are levels of aliveness. Person-

ality

is

the highest level; individual cellfunc-

tions are the lowest.

CAROL:

But there's still consciousness, it's

Tom's memory.

ZINDLER: All right. At this moment, in this

big vat with a few thousand nerve cells activ-

ated, there is a consciousness of the taste of

burnt toast. Let's slowlycool the medium ...

as the nerves cool, their electrical activity

begins to dim. The memory begins to fade.

It's going, going ... gone.

CAROL:

He's dead.

ZINDLER: But his nerve cells are still car-

rying on metabolism, even though they can't

Austin, Texas

do their electrical tricks at this temperature.

CAROL:

Well, can you bring back the

memory

by

heating the cells

up again?

ZINDLER: Do you doubt it? Of course we

can. There One burnt-toast consciousness-

raising session back in fullswing.

CAROL:

I guess he's

come

back to life.

RUTH: So

you agree reversibility of disin-

tegration is

a

criterion for defining death?

CAROL:

If you destroy those cells irrever-

sibly, he's dead.

ZINDLER: Happy to oblige.

[pretending to

drain all the fluid out of the imaginary disso-

lution tank]

There no more burnt-toast

memory. Tom is now dead, right?

CAROL: Are

you kidding? There's nothing

left

at

all Of

course

he's dead

ZINDLER: Aah I forgot to tell the class

when we began Whenever any cells came

floating away from Tom's body, they were

immediately sucked up from the dissolution

medium and piped into the thousands of

tissue culture flasks which surround you on

the walls of the lab. All the cells of Tom's

body - minus the few thousand neurons

needed for burnt-toast consciousness - are

happily growing and reproducing all around

you.

[pretending

to pick

up a

flask]

In this particular flask, we have an inter-

esting mixture of Tom's cells: there are

some eye-ball cells, some liver cells, some

toenail-making cells, and some cells that

used to be a freckle. Anyway, this is an

interesting collection of cells

The really interesting thing about these

cells in culture is that we should be able to

make them lose their inhibitions about asex-

ualreproduction. We should be able to coax

cells into reproducing that were no longer

reproducing when they were imprisoned in

Tom's body. Ina few weeks, we'll have three

times as much Tom as when we started.

TOM:

May I say something?

ZINDLER: Itall depends on whether you're

alive or not. If you're dead you can't say

anything.

TOM:

I'm dead.

[uproarious

laughter]

ZINDLER: At what point did you die?

TOM:

When there was nothing left.

ZINDLER: What do you mean, when there

was nothing left? We have three times more

Tom-cells than we had at the beginning.

TOM:

But I'm not here anymore.

A

messed

up

bunch of cells isn't me.

ZINDLER: Quite right What is missing?

What is it that makes Tom be Tom?

JIM: Organization. Of course you have to

April,1985

have the cells too, but without organization

- without the

neurons

connected to store

certain

memories -

you don't have

a

per-

son. Like Ruth, I think there are different

levels of aliveness. The highest is that of

consciousness

or

mind. But to have

mind,

you have to have body-level

or

organismal

organization and life. To have

organismal

life,you have to have tissue and cell level life.

Iguess the cellular level of aliveness

isas

low

as

you can get, but I don't know too much

about viruses. They might

be

subcellular

forms of life.

ZINDLER: That's allvery true and very well

put, but I would like to know what you're all

going to tell the Sheriff in a minute when he

comes to arrest me for the murder of Tom.

Have I committed murder? If not, what

crime - if any - have I committed?

RUTH:

Can you reassemble Tom from the

cell cultures?

ZINDLER: Certainly As a matter of fact, I

can produce identical triplet Toms - all

exactly alike.

RUTH:

I'm reluctant to say you have

com-

mitted

murder,

since Tom's body - I mean

bodies - are still carrying

on

the so-called

lifefunctions. But

Tom

isn't here anymore.

You've killed his mind. I don't know what

the

crime is

you've committed, but you

definitely

are a criminal.

JIM:

Mind-killing is 'menticide.' He's

a

menti-

cidal maniac.

ZINDLER: Give that boyan 'A,' but don't let

him talk to the judge Now that we have

come to the conclusion that a person is a

bundle of memories, I have some disturbing

news to tellyou. During the last three hours,

I have been insidiously altering your minds

- making you alldifferent from the bundles

of memories that came in the door over

there. A little bit of each one of you has

'died', and a slightly new person has taken

over each body.

Slowly but surely, I've been killing a little

bit of everyone.

HANK: So

that's what

my

brother meant

when he warned

me

that your class was

murder

ZINDLER: Well, I'm afraid time is running

out, and we've barely begun to answer the

question What is death? Since we have a

consensus that life and death are hot-cold

opposites,

I

have a home-work assignment

for you to write out for next week.

[groans, boos, hisses]

The degree of hotness or coldness can be

measured - we use a thermometer to do it.

Ifaliveness and deadness can also be mea-

sured as points on some sort of continuum

- ifwe can place them on some sort ofscale

- then I want you each to design for next

week a 'biometer'. Just as a thermometer

measures the heat content ofobjects (albeit,

Page 27



rather indirectly), your biometers should be

able to measure the amount of 'life' in an

object. Any questions?

JIM: Wha t is l ife? ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR American Chemical Society, and the

American Schools of Oriental

Research. He is also co-chairperson of

the Ohio Committee of

Correspondence on Evolution

Education and Director of the Central

Ohio Chapter of American Atheists.

Formerly a professor of biology and

geology, Frank R. Zindler is now a

science writer. A member of the

American Association for the

Advancement of Science, the

Page 28

April, 1985

American Atheist

U id

sou o r

d id

) o u n o t r e f u s e t o e a t ) o u r v e s e t a b l e s 1



R EPO RT F RO M IN DIA / M argaret B hatty

VIRTUE RESTORED

H

uman interest stories inour papers are

usually about women. They make good

copy by getting themselves burned for dow-

ry or byjumping into wells after being raped.

Sometimes we get another kind of report

- like the expose on pregnancy tests being

used to abort female fetuses about which I

wrote in the June, 1983, issue of the Amer-

ican Atheist. Recently some newspaper re-

porters turned over another stone, and for a

few days, the crawlies under it made news.

This time it was hymenoplasty - the sur-

gical restoration of virginity in unmarried

girls.

Before coming to that, some background

to the concepts ofchastity might be inorder.

Some years back, matrimonial ads always

asked for fair, beautiful, homely, convent-

educated virgins.

Homely

means home-

loving, and convent-educated means En-

glish-speaking. The word virgin, however,

has been dropped for some unknown rea-

son. I'm sure itisn't as a concession to a new

permissiveness because the same rigid con-

ventions prevail as before. Insome commun-

ities the bedsheets are viewed the morning

after the wedding to satisfy the bride's in-

laws that their stock willnot be bastardized

and that their son's new wifeisas good and

virtuous as the day she came off the as-

sembly line.

The alarming increase of VD among col-

lege students, particularly in metropolitan

cities likeBombay and Delhi, points to a high

level of sexual activity. This is especially

worrying because parents refuse to face the

question frankly with their children.

Most Indian men, despite having been

sexually active themselves before marriage,

insist that their brides be virgins. A Bombay

women's magazine once interviewed a few

well-known men on the question. I remem-

ber a filmactor and producer declaring that

he would not like a non-virgin for a bride any

more than he'd like putting on someone

else's dirty shirt. The idea that a fallen

woman is like soiled linen fitted inwellwith

his own vulgarization of man-woman con-

cepts projected through his own film pro-

ductions. And he is only one of many.

The superstition persists that the pre-

sence ofthat small triangular foldof tissue is

proof of female goodness and virtue. Its

absence, for any reason whatever, is proof

of wicked wantoness. But the facts are that

Austin, Texas

Indian girls are now more active in vigorous

sports and games and that there are far

greater chances of accidental rupturing.

Because of the many different cultures

prevalent here in India, one finds widely

differing attitudes towards pre-marital sex.

The Warli tribe living in the wooded hills

near Bombay have companiate marriages. If

the girl becomes pregant, she has reason to

be very happy about it and the marriage

ritual isthen solemnized. Ifnothing comes of

the trial relationship or if the two prove

incompatible, they are free to part amicably

and try out other partners. Hindu social

workers are now trying to convince them of

the sinfulness of this sensible custom.

Consequences

I was once somewhat startled when a

young friend about to be married wanted my

advice on whether she should goto a doctor

for surgical perforation before her honey-

moon. Some ofher friends had done so. She

came from an orthodox, middle-class, Hin-

du background, and I am sure that her

mother wouldn't have approved. She didn't

have it done, however, because she wasn't

sure how her fiance would take it.

Another couple I knew, Christian this

time, had married late in life, and within

months the relationship had turned ugly

with accusations and counter-accusations.

He declared she hadn't been chaste even

after marriage. In fact, said he, from the

showing of their first night together, she

hadn't even been much of a virgin.

The obligation to prove herself utterly

virtuous liesheavily on the conscience ofan

Indian woman. This holds true for married

women and widows.

The goddess Sita is the heroine of the

Ramayana, a beautifully written old epic

venerated by the Hindus. It tells of Sita's

abduction by Ravana, the demon-king of

Ceylon. Her husband, Rama, rescues her

and brings her home, but his subjects seri-

ously doubt her chastity since she had lived

for months in Ravana's castle as a captive.

To satisfy her detractors, Rama allows her

to undergo ordeal by fire.

She has a funeral pyre prepared saying:

When the shadow of dishonor dark-

ens o'er a woman's life,

April,1985

Death alone is a friend and refuge of a

true and faithful wife.

When a righteous lord and husband

turns his cold averted eyes,

Funeral flames dispel suspicion, hon-

or liveswhen woman dies

Sita emerges unscathed from the fire, and

as a paragon of virtue, she is held up as a

model for Hindu girls. In fact, in most ofour

films this theme turns up in different forms.

Womanly virtue and fidelity is put to the

severest test by ordeal and suffering at the

end of which the victim is rewarded with

beatitude. For women, death is recom-

mended as more desirable than dishonor.

Widows seek refuge in extreme and rigor-

ous kinds ofpiety. Their reputations are safe

from wagging tounges when chastity isprac-

tised as a pious necessity.

Seamy Sides

Sexual repression in men and women is

largely responsible for many of our social ills.

They are unable to have open, frank, and

entirely platonic relationships with each oth-

er. As a result, women are not safe in any

place, and there is a rising incidence of rape

in our cities.

Middle-class morality masks an uglier,

seamy side which comes out in the ha-

rassment and ill-treatment of women in the

streets and inco-educational colleges. Films

and popular songs are suggestively vile,with

strong sexual overtones, Some years ago

one such song went like this: If you and I

were locked into a room and the key got lost,

what would happen? Voyeurism at its sub-

tle best But with all heroines affected with

the Sita Symdrome, my guess isthat nothing

would happen - not behind that locked

door anyway. After the key was found and

the pair let out, he would boast to his friends

what an easy conquest she had proven to be

so that none should doubt his virility. And

she, to prove that she was virtuous still,

would jump offa high building or swallow rat

poison. It is very important that a girl not

only assiduously avoid sin, she must even

avoid the appearance of being sinfulbecause

Indian society makes no distinction between

the two conditions.

Our peculiar ambivalence towards sex is

reflected in the Indian contempt of the

Page 29



permissive West. In films the more liber-

ated white woman is projected as being

unchaste in contrast to the pious and re-

stricted Indian heroine, I recall once reading

a letter ina national daily inwhich the writer,

a male, said that no other country in the

world had been able to sublimate sex as we

Indians have, transforming the grossly sex-

ual impulse into a mystical one. The deca-

dent West could learn much from us. This-

from a citizen of a nation bursting at the

seams from overbreeding itself

When abortion c1incs were opened in

Bombay and MTP (medical termination of

pregnancy) was legalized, more unmarried

girls came for treatment than married ones.

There was also a startlingly high incidence of

incest involving fathers-in-law.

Hymenoplasty

In a patrilineal system, the arranged mar-

riage makes everything - including virginity

- negotiable. Hymenoplasty has been

around for centuries in folk-medicine. But it

has now become a part of florishingmedical

practices in Bombay where some of the

city's leading gynecologists and plastic sur-

geons have been performing the operations

for more than a decade. According to one

news report, many of the girls come infrom

the Middle East and belong to the upper

classes ofMuslim society inthose countries.

They pay up to Rs 20,000 ($2,000 U.S.) to

have their virginity restored. One doctor

disclosed that he did the operation only out

of compassion when patients approached

him ina state of desperation. At that price

it must be easy to be compassionate.

Deserted by their lovers and forced into

arranged alliances by their parents, many of

the girlswere accompanied bytheir mothers

who were worried that they might never find

husbands if they were not virgins or that

they might be abandoned after marriage and

become a burden to their families. In one

case, a father had threatened to murder his

daughter when he discovered her condition.

The identity of the girls is protected by

keeping them insmallprivate nursing homes.

One operation consists of paring the edges

of the torn hymen and suturing them. But a

more reliable method has been developed

by a plastic surgeon in which mucousal

tissue of the vaginal walls are sutured in-

stead. The surgeon claims this provides the

girl with a thick hymen - to prove to the

husband that she isextremely virtuous since

bleeding will be profuse. Cycling, gymnas-

tics, and other vigorous sports are discour-

aged for at least four weeks after surgery.

The doctors interviewed by the reporter

all took the view that they were rendering a

valuable social service. Said one, It's a

question ofthe girl's life.Ifshe doesn't bleed

on the first night, her whole future is at

stake. She will be thrown out by her hus-

band and be reduced to utter destitution.

A woman health researcher takes a dif-

ferent stand; I suppose hymenoplasty could

be justified within the limitations of such an

argument, she says. On the other hand, if

you popularize it and make it more widely

available, this phenomenon willreinforce the

old beliefs and odious nuptial customs which

are dying out, particularly in urban situa-

tions.

A feminist member of the Foundation for

Research in Community Health comdemns

it as the most tangible expression of double

standards we have about sexuality.

According to her, a well-known gyne-

cologist of Bangalore, whose patients are

drawn chiefly from the middle-class trading

communities, has taken the initiative of ad-

vising surgical removal of the hymen to

avoid the subsequent trauma not only for

the girl, but to her husband and in-laws. She

has had considerable success in convincing

her patients.

The entire warped viewofwomen's virtue

being located in that part of their anatomy

places many girls under the cumulative

trauma of risking abandonment by the man

they must marry. To avoid that they must

submit to painful and expensive surgery.

They then go on to embark on a lifetime's

relationship with a total stranger in an at-

mosphere of fraud, secrecy, and guilt. ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

In the year 1978,your editors, assisted

by Joseph Edamaruku, editor ofan

Indian atheist publication, combed

India seeking writers who would

consistently offer an interpretation of

Indian religious events. Margaret

Bhatty, in Nagpur, a well-known

feminist journalist, agreed that she

would do so in the future. She joined

the staff of the American Atheist in

January, 1983.

DIAL-AN-ATHEIST

The telephone listings below are the various services where you may listen to short comments on state/church separation

issues and/or viewpoints originated by the Atheist community.

Tucson, Arizona (602)623-3861

San Francisco, California (415)668-8085

Denver, Colorado (303)692-9395

Atlanta, Georgia (404)455-8860

Northren Illinois (312)335-4648

Central Illinois (217)328-4465

Des Moines, Iowa (515)266-6133

Lexington, Kentucky (606)278-8333

Boston, Massachusettes (617)969-2682

Detroit, Michigan (313)721-6630

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minn. (612)566-3653

Albuquerque, NewMexico (505)884-7360

Schenectady, NewYork (518)346-1479

Page 30

Sierra Nevada (702)972-8203

Columbus, Ohio (614)294-0300

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (405)677-4141

Portland, Oregon (503) 771-6208

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania (412) 734-0509

Austin, Texas _D1AL- THE-ATHEIST_(512) 458-5731

Houston, Texas (713)664-7678

Dial-A-Gay-Atheist (713)527-9255

Salt Lake City, Utah (801)364-4939

Northern Virginia (703)280-4321

April,1985

American Atheist



HISTORI L NOTES

100 Years Ago ...

In April, 1885, the Roman Catholic citi-

zens of Mercer County, Pennsylvania, peti-

tioned the county court that the school

directors of Sharpsville be restrained from

the use of the (King James) Bible in the

public schools. The petitioners claimed that

the service isoffensive to allmembers ofthe

Roman Catholic Church and calculated to

injure their children by inculcating errone-

ous views. (Truth Seeker, April 4, 1885)

In the same issue, the Truth Seeker

reported:

About the year 1656 the Jews of the

synagog at Amsterdam excommunicated

and cursed one of their number, even the

illustrious Spinoza. * This great man was

distinguished for the spotless purity of his

moral character, but being a student and

philosophe,

he had, like, thousands ofothers

since, thought himself out of the Jewish

church, and had taken final leave of the

synagog, The charge brought against him

was that of heresy. He gave up the ridicu-

lous notion of a personal God, . __He was,

under the most solemn circumstances, de-

clared: 'Accursed by the same curse where-

with Elisha cursed those wanton and inso-

lent children, by all the curses, anathemas,

interdictions, and excommunications fulmi-

nated from the time of Moses our Master to

the present day....

'''In the name of the Lord of hosts, Jah,

and in the name of the globes, wheels,

mysterious beasts, etc., let him be cursed in

heaven and earth, by the very mouth of the

Almighty God, by the mouth of the Sera-

phim, and Opanim, and ministering angels.

'By the seven angels who preside over

the seven days of the week, and by the

month of the seven principalities. Ifhe was

born inMarch, the direction ofwhich isto be

assigned to Uriel, let him be accursed by the

month of Uriel, and so on through all the

months.

Let

him be cursed wherever he turns;

may he perish by a burning fever, by a

consumption and leprosy. May oppression

and anguish seize him; may he drink the cup

of indignation, and may curses cover him as

a garment; let his sins never be forgiven, and

let God blot him out from under the heav-

ens.

Thus itruns on through several pages of

terrific denunciations, which were accom-

panied from time to time by the thrilling

sound of a trumpet, and wound up wth a cry

of execration, by the spectators, who shout-

ed 'Amen, so let it be.'

(*Baruch Spinoza, 1632-77,Dutch philoso-

pher)

Austin, Texas

35 Years Ago ...

The Progressive World magazine carried

a short item inits April, 1950, Department

of Things Almost Unbelievable

When St. John the Evangelist was ninety

years old, the emperor Domitian command-

ed him to be cast into a cauldron of boiling

hot oil. The place appointed for this torture

was a large open field before the Latin gate.

A huge cauldron was prepared and filled

with oil,pitch, and resin, which were melted

over a fire of wood. An enormous crowd

assembled on the spot to see the spectacle.

The evangelist, having been scourged ac-

cording to the custom, was led into the field.

More fire was built up and the cauldron

began to seethe and overflow.

Then the evangelist was taken up and let

down into the midst ofthe boilingmass. The

flames were so fierce and high as wholly to

conceal the martyr, but the crowd distinctly

heard a voice singing in the cauldron. Every

one was amazed and waited impatiently to

see the end. More and more fuel was piled

upon the fire until the heat was unbearable

for many yards' distance, and still the voice

was heard singing hymns of praise.

At length the fire burned out. The multi-

tude gathered around the cauldron. La

there/ sat the aged apostle in the midst

wholly uninjured. The oil, the resin, and the

pitch had all boiled away so that the caul-

dron was quite dry, but there sat the evange-

list, not a hair of his injured, but his face

beaming like the sun, and his aged body

actually invigorated. The officers lifted him

out of the cauldron and led him back to

prison.

(This story is told by St. Jerome, by

Tertullian, and by Eusebius, all in the third

and fourth centuries and has been repeated

in almost all the Lives of The Saints. )

25 Years Ago ...

And The Freethinker was reporting that

in England The Daily Maif' had released

facts about religion it had found in an

intensive enquiry. Out of 100baptised mem-

bers ofthe Church ofEngland, 6 thought the

Church old-fashioned, 68 thought it was

mainly forwomen, 61felt itwas mainly for

the old, 59 thought it was dull, and 49

thought it uncomfortable. Some of the

more fervent believers felt that the clergy

should brighten up the services and others

noted that they would not liketo have rock-

'n'-roll used for this purpose.

Only one person inseven went to church

or chapel and most of these were complete-

ly ignorant of the Bible. In fact, the Daily

Express discovered that six out ofevery ten

people in England had never read the Bible,

April,1985

but very few claim to be non-believers.

The Freethinker was caustic: Were they

really to read the Bible with understanding,

they would certainly nearly all be non-

believers. Out of every 100 people in Eng-

land, nine do admit to non-belief, but most of

the others call themselves Church of Eng-

land, and only nine in 100 call themselves

Roman Catholic.

20 Years Ago ...

On April 9, 1965, the U.S. Senate passed a

$1.3 billion dollar school aid bill. The House

had previously passed the bill263 to 153.

The measure, as reported by The Liberal

in its May, 1965 issue, was designed to

improve education inpoverty-stricken-

areas, but also included benefits to private

and parochial (i.e. religious) schools.

The Liberal, in its analysis, noted, Paro-

chial schools will benefit as the long stale-

mate in Congress over the church-state

issue finally is broken. For years aid to

public schools with federal funds had been

help up by Cardinal Spellman (New York)

who has openly stated that unless the aid

included his church schools his subjects in

Congress would block aid to the public

schools. This bill is a step in the direction of

complete financing of parochial schools,

under the guise of helping poverty-stricken

areas where children drop out because of

their parents' inability to keep them in

school.

... A Parochial school is in reality a part

of the church and the stress is on indoctrina-

tion in the R. C. religion.

15 Years Ago ...

The National Secular Society, in its publi-

cation The Freethinker, April 4, 1970, de-

clared that the British Humanist Associa-

tion had been guilty of a sell out to religion

in respect to British school children. The

Social Morality Council, a body made up of

Christians, Jews and Humanists, had just

published a report in which they had stated

that while compulsory worship (in public

schools) was indefensible they recommend-

ed worship by different sects . . . and

(religious) assemblies from which there

would be no opting out. The editor of the

Freethinker charged, For some reason the

British Humanist Association is bending

over backwards to conciliate the religious

and issellingBritish school children, teachers

and in my opinion Humanists up a most

obscure and ill-defined river.

(Religious education was and is compul-

sory in English public schools.) ~

Page 31



AMERICAN ATHEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn O'Hair

Z.P.G. AND RELIGION

When the first installment of

a

regularly scheduled, fifteen 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 uieeks in advance and were heavily censored. The series was concluded

on October 18, 1975when no further funding was available. ,

The following is the text of American Atheist Radio Series No. 174,first broadcast on December 27,1971.

I

ust came back from the University of

Wisconsin which had asked me to give a

speech concerned with Zero Population

Growth. When Iwas first asked to speak to

this concern of human

pollution

of the

world, I wondered how I would tie this into

my specialty. The subject on which the

students asked me to speak was Religion

as a Barrier to Population Control.

It turned out that the students knew more

than I did, for when I really dug into the

matter that old enemy religion was at the

root ofitallagain. So when Ilistened to Paul

Ehrlich on television this week and heard the

story all

over,

and refreshingly so from him, I

wondered why he did not get down to the

nitty gritty which is that the opposition is

religion . . . and we have to meet that

opposition head on.

I think I came to this conviction through

GORA, the head ofthe Atheist movement in

India. When he visited the United States,

and our American Atheist Center, we dis-

cussed this at length. We had both been

attacked by the Marxists who claim that

economics isthe determinant force forman.

He and I both felt that some ideas are so

powerful and so irrational that they cause

human beings to not alone act against their

own economic interests, but against the

very lifeforce within us all.

GORA brought this forcibly home to me

when he pointed out that in India a man will

drop over from starvation in the streets

when the streets themselves and the curb

markets are fullof food. GORA thought that

he would, himself, grab some food and run

with it. He would, he thought, catch and

slaughter a sacred cow so that his family

would eat. Yet, he had seen many, many

men, emanciated, desperate with hunger,

die in the streets without attacking a sacred

cow or without simply taking the food they

needed to remain alive.

GORA, originally of the Brahmin class, a

PhD in Biology, abandoned his class and his

profession in order to fight the Hindu re-

ligion in which the Indian populace was so

acculturated that death in the streets was

preferable to a breach of the religious laws.

Page 32

Actually, the use of death is one way to

control population and that, through famine,

may be the way which isfinallychosen bythe

people of the world. Actually, the single

most effective way isthrough education. We

have, today, the knowledge we need; we

know the statistical probablities of the

over-

crowding ofSpace Ship Earth. We have the

technology to move toward what needs to

be done, which is, to control our population

growth.

Why don't we move on it? Why don't we

act against the threat implied in the statistics

and information available? We don't move

because we hold ideas which are largely

irrational, which keep us from moving.

Religious ideas are foremost in this list.

Let's review brieflywhat everyone knows.

Population is a problem because of the

climbing human birthrates, the decline in

human death rates, and the attendant dif-

ficulties relating to food and space distri-

bution - and the diminuition of natural and

man-produced resources to handle this pop-

oulation.

In 1850we had one billionpeople on earth.

In 1930wehad two billionpeople on earth.

In 1960 we had three billion people on

earth.

In 1975we willhave four billion people on

earth.

In the year 2000 we willhave seven billion

people on earth, at the present rate of

increase in demographic projection.

Everyone knows these figures these days.

The paperback books are coming out by the

hundreds; newspapers feature these stories

and plays, movies, and television shows love

the theme. We either increase the death rate

or we decrease the birth rate. Those are our

only two choices.

So what do we do? Nothing. We do

absolutely nothing. And why? Ah That is

where religion comes in.

Let's look at some world sores, where the

population problems are the greatest. Hindu

isthe religion inone such country, India, and

in this religion, according to the Dharma

Shastras, one of the major objectives of

marriage is a praja, progeney. Unless a

April,1985

man begets at least one son, the aim of

marriage is not fulfiled. According to Manu,

a man proceeds downwards while trying to

attain Moksha ifhe does not beget a son. He

remains in debt to his ancestors, and this

debt is called a pitri rina. The debt is only

paid off when one male issue appears and

the progeny-chain is completed. Ifthe man

can not do this, his youngest brother (dewar)

is called in to impregnate his wife in a ritual

Niyoga. These are called field-born sons or

Kshetraja san tan. If the wife is at fault and

cannot

have

children, she may be disowned

from the marriage.

Now the catch is that while he tries to

have a son, any number ofdaughters can be

born - twenty ifthe wifecan hold out inthat

much child birth. He must keep trying, for

only the birth of a son can save the father

from hell

(Put),

for a man attains heaven by

the birth of a son, enjoys the comfort of

heaven by the birth of a grandson, and

attains the sun-world (surya-loka) by the

birth of a great-grandson.

Only a son can offer fire (agni-dana) at the

funeral pyre of the deceased father. The

sons grow beards for a fortnight after the

death and think about their forefathers and

the progeny chain.

Sterile women are abusively addressed as

bajhin or thantha and ifthe child dies during

or after birth the women are accused of

devouring them

(chabauni, putkati).

A ster-

ile man is addressed as banjha, and if his

issue dies the address isabusive - nirbansa,

meaning one without progeny. And the

doctrine of determinism is inherent in the

Hindu religion. That is the number of child-

ren to be born ispre-fixed bya god. This is all

to say that the Hindus would need to

transgress their religious values to accept

family planning, and vasectomy would be

the last technique accepted by them

So let's turn to the Islamic religion. Here

children are viewed as the richest blessings

granted by Allah. The Koran insists on

marriage. Celibacy is contrary to the ethics

ofIslam. There is a strong belief in the active

providence of Allah and the concept of

predestination or

kismet.

American Atheist



Islam's most powerful medieval theolog-

ian, AI-Ghazzali, reminded that the Prophet

Mohammed said three times a man who

abstains from marriage because he is ter-

rifiedof a familycannot belong to us.

In Islam, the entire importance ofwomen

is based on marriage and motherhood, In-

deed coitus interruptus as a birth control

method is only licit when it is necessary to

preserve the wife's health and beauty

for the

husbond. Now, when a religion such as this

trusts the beneficient character of divine

providence - of its god - any question of

restricting the number of offspring tends to

appear as a lack of piety or a lack of trust in

that god's divine judgement

As I researched for this University of

Wisconsin speech I found that we have no

idea ofwhat goes on inthe Islamic countries

of Africa and Asia on this matter, and yet

they have five hundred million people, one-

sixth ofthe world's population and intypical

American fashion we ignore them in our

research.

About the Buddhists, seven hundred mil-

lion in Asia - with Shintoism, Taoism,

Confucianism, intheir midsts, although they

represent one-fourth of the world popula-

tion we wipe them off with not even one

sentence in a book on the subject of world

population.

We don't even know anything about

China, which has perhaps 750 millionpeo-

ple, another one-third of the world popula-

tion. Chou En-Iai,in 1964, stated:

We do believe inplanned parenthood,

but it is not easy to introduce all at

once inChina and itismore difficultto

achieve in rural areas where most

people live, than in cities. The first

thing is to encourage late marriages.

And, this has been stressed that age twenty-

fiveisthe age for women, age thirty for men.

The two-child family is strongly promoted,

with a three to five year space between

births recommended. Abortion is widely

available (the vacumn method) and birth

control information is widely available. Yet

China will reach one billion people before

the end ofthis century which is just twenty-

nine years hence.

Allthat we really know about Russia and

Japan is that these nations have furnished

abortion on demand to women, but their

statistics do not speak to their population

problems and we do not know how to judge.

Counting Islams, Hindus, Communists,

we have ignored five-sixths of the world in

our research on population. We know some

of what they do and think on a religous basis

but not much. So let's look at the white-

Judeo-Christian world which is less than

one-sixth of the globe population and see

what this ethnic group is doing about birth

control.

Orthodox Jews: A Jewish couple is ex-

pected to fulfillthe commandment in Gen-

Austin, Texas

esis 1:28 by producing at least one son and

one daughter. The Jews ofReformed Juda-

ism, however, do (Union of American He-

brew Congregations, Central Body of Re-

formed Judaism, 1959 resolution) favor

elimination of all restrictions and prohibi-

tions against the dissemination of birth-

control information and the rendering of

birth control assistance. But, Orthodox

Jews object to every form ofcastration and

surgical sterilization (of men) in the most

uncompromising terms, but sterilization of

women ispermitted (based on Moses Maim-

onides, 12th century Jewish Scholar's edict)

better childless than to have godless child-

ren or for fear ofexcessive pain or danger

in childbirth. On abortion, the Orthodox

Jews define human life as being distinctly

fixedat the moment when the greater part of

the body (some versions: the head) has

emerged from the birth canal. Maimonides

taught that if the unborn child was like a

pursuer (intention) killingher (the mother)

abortion could be justified by drug or by

hand. And inthe Talmud and the Responsa

the use of contraceptives is decreed thus

by using an absorbent to prevent concep-

tion when the woman is a minor, or preg-

nant, or still nursing her child.

It is extraordinary that in the 1970's in

America, this religion would reach back to

base its values on a 12th century interpreter

and on this bases its attitude in respect to

population now.

The Roman Catholics reject the idea that

coition can be separated from reproduction.

Pius XI,

Encyclical Casti Connubbii:

Any

use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in

such a way that the act is deliberately

frustrated in its natural power to generate

lifeis an offence against the law of God and

of nature, and those who indulge insuch are

branded with the guilt of a grave sin. On

abortion, Iquote the authority ofFr. Charles

McFadden, writing in

Medical Ethics

in

1961, every human fetus, regardless of its

stage of development, is a human person

and any act which is a deliberate and dir-

ect destruction of that innocent lifeis there-

fore an act of murder. Serillization is

condemned, in this religion, on the basis of

the ban on mutilation (Pius XII 2/24/70,

based on the Decree of Sacred Congreg-

ation of 21st March, 1931). Even anovulant

drugs (Pius XII, Sept 1958) are forbidden

when used to prevent conception by pre-

venting ovulation. Indeed, the Code of

Canon Law of 1917 (Canon 1013, No.1)

states, The primary end of marriage is the

procreation and education of children.

Ithas been consistently held bythe Roman

Catholic Church that any conjugal act invol-

ving a physical or chemical barrier to the

union of sperm and ovum is vitiated in its

integrity and its essential nature and not

being carried out in proper manner is

gravely sinful. Actual continence or re-

fraining from all sexual intercourse is the

only licit Roman Catholic method of birth

April,1985

control, sanctioned by the Sacred Peniten-

tiary in 1853. The so-called rhythm method,

countenanced in November 1951, is an in-

terpretation ofthis, being nothing more than

a periodic continence (in Pius XIIaddress to

Italian Catholic Society of Midwives.)

The Protestants are no angels. Luther laid

down the twice a week rule for maritial

relationship, toward family obligations, and

Calvin decreed that procreation remained

for them (man and woman) as for Augustine

and Aquinas, the only really positive pur-

pose of sex.

Sex for anything but reproduction has

been strongly condemned by all of Protes-

tant puritanism. Itwas not untilthe so-called

Lambeth Conference in 1930 that a very,

very cautious sanction was given to the idea

of familylimitation by some Protestants, but

even today the National Council of

Churches and most Prostestant bodies do

not endorse direct sterilization or direct

abortion.

Yet, there are currently fiftytypes of birth

control methods, under seven categories of

types which are known and could easily be

put into effect Inthe offingis a wonder-land

of pills.

We are faced with a conflict of basic

values, and religion is the older, cherished,

and protected value in our culture. But now

the situation is one of our private self-

determination, our national self-interest, be-

ing set within the confines of international

and global well-being and survival on Space

Ship Earth. One of these values must be

subordinated to the other, or even sacrificed

inwhole to the other, or we willlose both. A

moral commitment must be made. The

whole familyof man must be respected ...

and only the illogic of religions of the world

stand in the way.

No private groups such as Zero Popul-

ation Growth (ZPG) or even a combination

of private groups can hope to reach these

problems. It must be undertaken with con-

certed action and tax funding which means

under the aegis of government and its coer-

cive persuasion and this coercive persua-

sion must be on an international basis,

rationally determined. For, there isan urgen-

cy to the population problem and an im-

mensity which transgresses all boundaries

of nation, geography, ethnic grouping, and

religion. The sacred cow of religion - like

the sacred cows in India - can no longer

wander aimlessly among the heavy world

populace while people die from the lack of

food that the cow's death could provide.

Even more so, it is that cow - the symbol of

irrational thinking - which we can no longer

countenance: We must confront the relig-

ious base of these attitudes, whether you

like to do so or not, for that is our primary

hinderance. ~

Page 33



POETRY

CATILE BEAMS

Page 34 April,1985 American Atheist

The sun crashed down

Waiting to poison the waters of the

Rivers of the brain

Elastic hotels bent their

Fingers into the holes of the

Dam of the ectomorph ism

Clocks in a catatonic cacophony

Broke up the game of checkers

Told everybody to go away

And so they all sidled along

To a different shape.

QUESTIONS ...

Tom James

Do you like the feel of

velvet

grass

stroked gently across your palm,

Or the delicate touch a rose

leaves upon your cheek,

or maybe the earth

sifting through your fingers?

Does a tree move you when leaves

dance like martinettes in the wind,

or the hoot of an owl as he

perches watchful?

THE WALL

Does the fragrance of strawberry blossoms

thrill you,

or maybe the caress of an icy

mountain stream as it races between

your legs?

I watch the tears,

Like a waterfall,

Flowing freely

At the Western Wall.

When was the last time you stole

solitude in the wake of a sunrise,

or swam the ocean of your youth,

or merely walked the hidden lands

that absorb your secret fears?

t's said a warmth

Touches fingertips

And works its way within;

That bodies fillwith holiness

To cleanse their every sin.

I'm sorry you thought this a question,

the bastards even burn the books.

But, for me,

It's too far away to feel.

I touch cold stone.

I am alone.

Charles L. Carr

Written prayers,

From the pious

To cease their misery,

Are placed within the crevices

With the hopes that god willsee.

But, for me,

It all seems so unreal.

Their yellowed words

Are never heard.

Steve Becker



N AT UR E S W A Y/G era ld T ho len

HERE OME DE JUDGE

T

he trouble withthis world is that it has no

referee - nobody to determine whether

nations are playing fairlyor biting and kick-

ing secretively. To make matters worse,

most people are so busy promoting their

own interests they don't give a damn that

there's nobody umpiring. Wouldn't it be

keen if some great big joker with an ear-

piercing whistle and a striped shirt could

send political idiots to the penalty box when

they did (or said) something stupid?

A less visible problem is that while there

actually is no bona fide referee, there

are

many people (and/or groups) who visualize

themselves as stalwarts of truth and justice.

Ask any person, court or government in

history ifthey have truly been fairminded.

You know the answer is sure to be, Why,

certainly.

Whether culturally drawn self-evaluations

are developed naively or with deliberately

intended misrepresentation is, I suppose, a

matter oftime, geography, and social circum-

stance. The fact remains, as I have stated

repeatedly, written history to a great extent

represents one ofthe grandest

fiction

annals

of all time. Oh sure, the dates of events may

be accurate, many of the specifics totally

and unequivocally correct, but the causes,

the results, and the analyses of those events

are usually something out of fantasyland. So

it is in our own time and in our own culture.

Who willbe the

judge,

the bedrock of fair

consideration, with compassion for all peo-

ple? Perhaps it is not possible to find a

person (or group ofpersons) totally unsway-

ed Bypersonal considerations or completely

unaffected by contemporary social cus-

toms.

The United State is presently responding

to some kind of mind-sucking, pious, and

falsely-directed partisan patriotism. We are

the good guys. We should know by now

that we have

always

been the good guys.

Haven't we told ourselves this down through

history? Continually? We are a dress-

maker's form of virtue and respect on which

the world would do well to pattern itself All

of these things we tell

ourselves -

without

benefit of unbiased judgment. Whatever

became of the fine art of constructive criti-

cism?

Austin, Texas

I used to be a bitless than attentive during

discussions about free-enterprise, capital-

ism, democracy, etc., vs. communism and/

or socialism. However, more recently, espe-

ciallysince these two opposites have been

conservatively and religiously redefined, re-

spectively, as

good

and

evil,

my interest has

been significantly rekindled. Inorder to form

sensible opinions in these areas, I knew it

would be imperative to have valid definitions

of the terms involved. And, being as there

was no referee - no non-prejudiced author-

ity on whom I could rely for honest definite

terms - Iconcluded that Iwould have to be

my own

judge.

I would have to thoroughly

familiarize myself with the absolute mean-

ings of the political and economical aspects

involved. Or, to put it more accurately, I

would have to know precisely what

other

people meant when they used these words

in conversation. Iwas subsequently amazed

to find that most people do not have the

vaguest notion of the meanings or the

implications of any of those words. Com-

munism, in its classical, political/econom-

icsense, was perhaps the easiest ideological

concept to analyse. And, although in some

under-developed social communities, itmay

be utilized to social advantage, in the long

run, and idealistically, it won't fly. Why?

Simply because people through individual-

ity, indifference, or varying degrees of inter-

est insociety as a whole, although they may

be perfectly willingto

share equally, willnot,

or

cannot

work equally for the benefit ofall.

Therefore, the concept of true communism

is internally defeated before it ever has any

chance to be tested by actual application.

Without individual incentive

individuals

will

not perform. That has nothing to do with

politics - it is human nature.

But, what about capitalism and free en-

terprise? Being the opposite of communism,

wouldn't this be the ideal political/ economic

situation for people to adopt? At least this is

the current idealistic rhetoric being peddled

in the United States today. And, I must

admit, it took me awhile to identify errant

theoretical concepts in the minds of most of

us. The words free enterprise and capital-

ism are by no fancifulstretch ofthe imagina-

tion synonymous. To begin,

free enterprise

April, 1985

refers only to the practice of permitting

private business/industry to operate with a

minimum of government control. Look it

up The true wealth of

any

nation lies in its

(natural) resources and the ratio of those

resources to its national population (con-

sumption). A nation without sufficient re-

sources, food, water, minerals, agriculture,

etc., cannot possibly fare well. Itis, indeed, a

poor nation. In such a nation, and as dis-

tasteful as it may seem to many under the

present pressurized world political circum-

stances, certain communistic (share-the-

resources) principle, may be in fact advan-

tageous. Now, before you take pen in hand

to write me a you dirty pinko letter,

consider for a moment the qualifyingcircum-

stances of this statement in its entirety. By

no stretch of the imagination do I advocate

totalitarianism ingovernment, whether com-

munistic, socialistic, democratic, fascistic,

monarchistic, theocratic, or otherwise. And,

as I stated above, communism (generally

speaking) won't fly.

But to get back to the subject of free

enterprise. Let's examine

free enterprise.

Historically it was a manner in which

indi-

viduals

(note emphasis) bartered (traded)

goods in order to obtain sustenance. It

began as a trade system between citizens

and, as such, governments had no particu-

lar interest. To quote from the

American

People's Encyclopedia,

It isconceivable, in

fact, that under free enterprise a system

might develop in which each individual

worked at whatever he liked to do, gave

away what he produced, and depended on

gifts from other people to satisfy his needs

and desires. It may be surmised, however,

that if exchange of gifts was permitted,

many individuals dissatisfied with their gifts

would exchange with each other to obtain

goods more to their liking, and that common

sense would suggest a direct exchange of

goods in the first place. The

Encyclopedia

further states - and this is a

very

important

part of the

free

enterprise concept - The

basic requirement necessary for the exis-

tence of free enterprise insociety is that the

laws and customs allow the necessary indi-

vidual freedom of choice within wide limits.

This requirement is not as simple as it seems

Page 35



at first sight. Laws and customs must also

specify what resources an indiuidual may

claim as his own and what uses may be

made of resources without infringing the

rights of other people. [Emphasis added.]

Everyone should pay particular attention

to that last sentence because it represents

the significant difference - the immovable

dividing line - between free enterprise and

capitalism. To insure that free enterprise

remains

free,

safeguards or regulations -

laws, if you will- must be adopted by the

participants in order to prevent fraud, coer-

cion, exploitation, and, most importantly

MONOPOLIZATION of resources. In

short, rules of conduct are the definitive

boundaries ofany endeavor, whether one is

talking about business or card games. They

are our only means of determining what we

have decided isacceptable inour society as

opposed to what we regard as cheating. But

what ifthese rules of conduct somehow

become circumvented? What ifthe regula-

tory agency (government) itself comes un-

der the manipulatory influence ofcertain of

the more powerful members of the free

enterprise community? What if tax shields

and/or other regulations favoring specific

groups or individuals become a part of the

rules ofthe game? Would itstill be the same

game? Or would it, instead, have been

perverted into a system then ultimately

designed to destroy the very concept of

free trade?

As I stated earlier, most people do not

have the vaguest notion of the meanings or

the implications ofany ofthose words (free

enterprise, capitalism, communism, social-

ism, etc.) Or at least my conversations with

many would so indicate. Surely I am. not

alone in recognizing that when Ronald

Reagan opens his mouth it is, in fact, the

voice of corporate influence that spews

forth. It is people such as Reagan, who

through ignorance or intentional deceit, try

to imply that capitalism and free enterprise

are one and the same. Inthat respect, and in

a broad sense, Ronald Reagan is a blatant

liar.

Let's look at capitalism a moment. Ac-

cording toAmerican Peoples' Encyclopedia

again - Capitalism, (is) an economic sys-

tem the basis of which includes a society of

free individuals, the private ownership of

productive equipment and resources, a mon-

ey

medium of exchange

[Emphasis added]

and opportunity for the individual to maxi-

mize his income - profit, interest, or wages

- by entering into free contracts arising

from rational choice in a free competi-

tive market. Now, on the surface this

definition sounds peachy-keen - it does

appear to bear close resemblence to free

enterprise. This, most likely, is what con-

fuses people who tend not to closely analyse

situations. Note, however, the (emphasiz-

ed) inclusion of

a money medium of ex-

change in the criteria of capitalistic re-

Page 36

quirements. This is, in fact, where the

system gets its name - capitalism. It would

be impossible, in a system based on barter-

ing (tradng), to misconstrue the value, say,

of a potato. A potato has the same, identical

value to every consumer - whether banker

or bartender. It only has a value of one meal

(or a portion thereof). On the other hand,

money - a dollar bill or a quantity of

gold/silver (any medium of exchange ) -

has a

changeable

value. Its value of ex-

change can be manipulated bycertain inter-

ests: (1) by regulatory agencies (govern-

ments) or (2) by enormously wealth-

y individuals or groups of individuals within

the particular system, or

3)

by control of

resources or production facilities within a

system. Money is, therefore, the control

device of a capitalist system. It would be

naive to suppose that an average citizen ina

purely capitalistic system could control

the value of money. It is this fact that

introduces the appearance of social classes

within the system, i.e. poor, middle-class,

and wealthy. Some people are poor because

ofa lack ofambition or ofopportunity. Many

more are middle-class because of unique

capabilities and/or opportunity. A very few

become enormously wealthy because of

unique capibilities and/or opportunities, but

mostly because they come into positions

where they can manipulate and/or control

the flowofcurrency or the acquired control

of resources. Let's look at an extreme

example of manipulatory control. Take

the state of South Africa. It is the world's

major producer of diamonds. So much so

that one can easily claim that it sets a

worldwide price standard in the diamond

trade business. Diamonds are not rare.

There are billions of diamonds available if

one can afford the purchase price thus

established by this highly controlled indust-

ry. Does this make diamonds valuable? If

you think so, try to sell your diamond to

someone else at anything near the price you

originally paid for it. With this in mind then

consider - did the price of diamonds sub-

stantially benefit the living conditions and

the economy of the original owners/inhabit-

ants (citizens) ofSouth Africa? Just what is

the current political economic situation in

South Africa in respect to the Blacks and

the South Afrikanders?

Here are two more significant paragraphs

regarding the economics of capitalism as

stated in the

Encyclopedia.

Most writers who have described

the functioning ofcapitalism have had

in mind an economic model corres-

ponding closely to the economic real-

ity of the mid-nineteenth century.

Such an economy is made up of

relatively small, privately owned, com-

peting firms, many of which produce

similar or identical products. They

compete for raw materials, labor, and

the purchasers' dollars, just as work-

April,1985

ers compete for jobs and purchasers

for products. The market is free from

governmental,

monopolistic,

or other

restrictions, and the price ofany com-

modity is determined solely by supply

and demand.

Under these conditions, if the sup-

ply of a particular good is scarce

relative to the demand for that good,

competing buyers willbid up its price.

The high price of scarce goods will

tend to draw wealth and labor for its

production away from the production

of goods for which the demand - and

therefore the market price - is lower.

The opposite tendency is observed in

the case of goods of which the supply

is high in relation to demand. This

system brings profits to effecient pro-

ducers - those most successful in

estimating and most economical in

satisfying demand - and penalizes

inefficient producers with loses or, in

the extreme case, bankruptcy. Thus

ualue determines price, and price

guides decision in the allocation of

resources throughout the economy.

[Emphasis added throughout.]

These statements alone point out that

when resources available within the system

are controlled by select special interest

groups, indiuiduals,or corporations, or when

the value of currency is determined synthet-

ically, the system becomes something that

does not vaguely resemble free enterprise.

In any system - capitalist, communist or

otherwise - if a nation (i.e., a body of

people, associated with a particular terri-

tory, sufficiently conscious of its unity to

seek or to possess a government peculiar-

ly its own) claims to be a nation it is ethically

obligated to see to the needs of its people. In

order to see to the needs of people certain

things must be classified as utilities. A-

mong these utilities must be listed certain of

the necessities of existence - food, hous-

ing, availability of medicine, energy, trans-

portation, jobs, and any of the items without

which life cannot be adequately supported.

These utilities must be beyond the reach of

greed or unconcern. Otherwise a nation is

simply an exclusive country club wherein

only survivors can exist. ~

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

The common sense man of Atheism,

Mr. Tholen is the product of

the Gulf Coast marshes of Texas.

When he's not slaving over

the

American Atheist

as its Assistant Editor,

he's writing poetry of which

an Atheist movement can be proud.

American Atheist



Book Review

Abortion Freedom

A Worldwide Movement

by Colin Francome

London, England:

George Allen

Unwin

241 pages; $7.95 paper, $19.95 hardback

T

his is an 8Y: x 5Y z paperback book,

published in England and Australia in

1984. Itis extracted from the author's thesis

for a Ph.D.

Beginning with the British Act of 1967the

author traces a world-wide trend to relax

the laws of abortion. Seeing the beginnings

of concern in the increase of world popula-

tion, and noting the trial of birth control

information disseminators (Charles Brad-

laugh and Anne Besant, atheist leaders, trial

of 1877) as being a turning point in the

approach to the problem, the author deals

frankly and forthrightly with the problems

which are caused by religion doctrines.

The author documents the facts claim-

ed by each side. and then examines the four

main disputes which seem as having arisen

therefrom: (1) the effects on attitudes to life,

(2) effect of legislation on back-street

abortions, (3) medical effects, and (4) public

opinion.

She premises that the social climate isa

factor in the development of birth control

and abortion rights but gives no explanation

or evaluation of how that social climate is

engineered. She does, however, reach back

to find the origins of the debate about birth

control, naming both Robert Dale Owen,

Dr. Charles Knowlton, Emma Goldman,

Margaret Sanger (allatheists leaders inthe

U. S.). Unlike American authors, she does

not shy away from several short analyses of

religion's influence, each in a different time

frame.

From these individuals came an aware-

ness for many persons and abortion reform

associations were started - the beginnings,

programs and activities of these being docu-

mented. As the movement developed it is

followed in England, the United States, the

U.S.S.R., Scandinavia.

The issue inseen as developing by spurts,

each time being locked into confrontation

with conservative and religious ideology.

From the mid-nineteenth century to First

World War being one period, the debate

between the two great wars being the se-

cond, the debate up to the sexual revolu-

tions of the 1960's and that which has

extended since to the current date.

A chapter is spent reviewing the legalisa-

tion of abortion in England (even recogniz-

ing that the atheist Natural Secular Society

was inon the fight) and another on the same

Austin, Texas

in the United States. For an Englishwoman,

she has a good grasp of the problems in our

culture. She does take an objective look at

Planned Parenthood, our Constitution, and

the differences between the U. S. and

English medical practices. Our old friends,

Lawrence Lader and BillBaird are actually

recognized as being inthe fight- and so are

the forces of religion.

As one would expect, the book being

based on dissertation material, it is well

documented with statistics.

Perhaps the most difficult writings are

those of our own times. And, here the

author has the benefit o t viewing the United

States from afar. When she gets to analyz-

ing the opposition to abortion, again not

shirking the religious, from the U. S. Su-

preme Court Roe u W ade decision forward,

she is incisive. She does not even hesitate to

take a shot at forecasting. Based upon her

analysis of history and the obvious world

trend, she specifically outlines possible de-

velopments in Britain, Ireland, the United

States, Europe, the Moslem countries, and

Latin America.

Although it looks grim to those of us who

are involved in the birth control fight, it is

reassuring to lay down the book with a

feeling that there has been documented

progress and that it isjust as likelyas not to

continue, transcending all reactionary ef-

forts.

The author has some short failures of

understanding in regard to the cultural

milieuofthe United States, but by and large

her grasp of the essentials seems to be more

than adequate to enable this educational

publication.

The American Pope

The Life and Times

of

Frands Cardinal Spellman

by John Cooney.

New York, NY: Times Books

, 364 pages, $19.95

T

his is an Y z x 6~ hardback book,

published in fallof 1984. At the time it

created considerable excitement with innu-

endoes of the homosexuality of Cardinal

Spellman. It contains, however, just that-

such innuendoes. The value of the book

does not liein the emphasis on homosexual-

ity which the media used to sensationalize it.

Its value is in the disclosure of the power of

the Roman Catholic Church, housed inthis

man, as it was exerted in the national and

the international political policies of the

United States for three decades.

April, 1985

The author isclever, and he has a devastat-

ing use ofwords to support Roman Catholic-

ism while he castigates, ah but gently, the

purported personal pettiness of Spellman.

His introductory history of the papacy is

naive. His slight probes into the childhood,

youth, and first assignment of Spellman are

ideal to buttress church philosophy, salve it

over, make itpalatable. He actually believes

that Peter was crucified and buried inRome.

He delights in jabbing at Atheist U.S.SR

His evaluations are unreal: he sees a Roman

Catholic Church marriage being accepted

as a state (Italian) civil requirement as a

loss to the church. He glosses over the

reasons for the position of the church at the

time of the Lateran treaties with Hitler and

Mussolini. In one sentence he undermines

Eleanor Roosevelt, in another he destroys

the reputation of Henry Wallace. He wafts

away the intrusion of the papacy into the

CivilWar in the United States. The Croatian

slaughter of Orthodox Serbs by Pavelic is a

mere embarrassment to the church. The

butchery in Spain is condoned by the Vati-

can because Franco was rabidly anticom-

munist. The exiled Polish government sup-

ported by the Vatican in London is simply

due to papal alarm. One hesitates to accept

the author's evaluation of Spellman when

his evaluation of history, politics, and the

Roman Catholic Church is so simplistic.

But the facts inthe

book-spill

out over the

intent of the writer. Here we see the incipi-

ent outreach of religious and political power

brokers to Central and South America, in

whose wake Reagan is increasingly entan-

gled now. '

While documenting slowly and carefully

the base of power which Spellman put

together for himself, the author is forced to

reveal glimpses into the financial wealth and

political machinations of the church.

The most shocking disclosures come with

the war efforts of our nation, World War II,

the wars in Korea, Vietnam. The fusion of

religion and patriotism, with which we still

struggle, is disquietly disclosed as a Spell-

man binder. Itischilling to find that the U.S.

_ Cold War with the godless U.S.S.R. was

a Vatican concoction. It is totally shocking

that he was deliberately used by the U. S. in

its intelligence apparati. The Marshall Plan,

the Christian Democratic Parties, secret

funding of elections in Europe, the Me-

Carthy era, tinkering with the United Na-

tions, with federal financing of education in

the U. S., were but routine activities of the

papacy.

The unintentional, but necessary, disclo-

sures of the author as he picks away at

Spellman are meat for any Atheist. The

book is recommended to the political litera-

ti ; it may fool the naive.

Page 37



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thank you for publishing my quotation

research (Feb. 1985American Atheist mag-

azine). Iam gladwe have adopted a policy of

no quotation without documentation. Af-

ter all, a quote without its source is worth-

less.

For the further sake of accuracy I would

like to point out one correction in my

research. The book by John E. Remsburg,

which I listed as

Six Historic Presidents,

is

actually entitled Six Historic Americans, as

you indicated in your article.

Keep up the good work

August Berkshire, Director

Twin Cities Chapter

of American Atheists

Minnesota

P.S. I willsend you the book titles, as well

as photcopies of the entire letters, from

which I got the quotes by Adams and

Jefferson. They willno longer be unverified

Thanks again

Anyone who would tend to believe in the

efficacy of prayer, consider this.

Bob Gibson, the HALLOF FAMEpitcher

for the St. Louis Cardinals for a number of

years, now the pitching coach for the At-

lanta Braves, was on the mound in a game

with the Pittsburgh Pirates. It was the ninth

inning. Twoouts, the score, Cardinals ahead

2 to 1. A Latin player stepped to the plate.

He dropped the bat, rubbed his hands in the

dirt, picked up the bat, held itin his lefthand,

and with his right hand, made the sign ofthe

cross. (He blessed himself asking the Lord

to help him get a hit). Bob Gibson seeing

this, walked halfway to the plate, struck a

pose as ifreceiving a signal from the catcher,

looked the batter inthe eyes and said to him:

OK turkey, we're going to see which one of

us the great umpire in the sky favors.

Gibson walked back to the mound and

proceeded to blaze three fast balls over the

center ofthe plate. The batter walked back

to the dugout without taking the bat fromhis

shoulder. (Some umpires admitted that they

used to call balls and strikes by the sound

Page 38

the ball made when it hit the catchers mitt.)

Someone once asked Casey Stingle if it

helps to make the sign of the cross when

coming to bat. He said, Sure does, especial-

lyifyou are hitting over 300.

Stephen Kushner

North Carolina

I just finished reading Quest for Ire by

Steve Becker inthe February issue. I found

it interesting. I would like to add to his list

two more popular Rock & Roll bands that

have critcized religion: Rush

&

Pink Floyd.

Both of the bands consistently produce

'substance songs.' -

Rush's early days had many distopia

themes with religion as a part ofthe distopia.

Some examples are: They left our planets

long ago/The elder race still learn and growl

Their power grows with purpose strong/To

claim the home where they belong/Home to

tear the temples down/Home to change -

from 2112 (the elder race is ourselves in

the future), or Xanadu (a parody of the

original) where the singer finds immortality

and then laments the boredom of it.

Later criticisms include Free Will , a

direct slap in the face at the interventionist

god point of view, and Witch Hunt , ex-

cerpt: Those who know what's best for

us/must rise and save us from ourselves an

attack on the 'Moral Majority' and company.

Pink Floyd has criticized religion too many

times to mention them all, but two of the

most notable are The Lord ismy shepherd,

I shall not want/He makes me down to lie

Through pastures green he leadeth me the

silent waters by/with bright knives he re-

leaseth my soul/He maketh me to lamb

cutlets in the song Sheep (oh what an

excellent metaphor) and by the cold and

religious we were taken in hand/shown how

to feel good and told to feelbad/tongue-tied

and terrified we learned how to pray in the

song your possible pasts.

Atheists who enjoy Rock & Rollshould try

these two bands.

Ewan Dowell

Missouri

Avi Naftel (Letters, February '85 issue) is

not alone in questioning whether Atheism

needs the Winter Solstice. Naftel views the

issue psychologically: do we cling to the

Solstice only to avoid being without a winter

holiday? I'd like to examine the Solstice

April,1985

historically. One freethought writer pro-

motes the holiday thus: The Christians

stole the Solstice from the pagans, and we're

going to take it back. Atheists reject any

prescientific superstition. So why embrace

this

particular

pagan feast?

Like christian celebrations itpredates, the

Solstice originated in ignorance. Ancient

peoples saw the days growing shorter and

feared the sun would vanish altogether. This

gave rise to all manner of myths telling of

demigods locked in battle for the sun, drag-

ons eating it, and the like. The Solstice

marked some cosmic hero-priest's victory in

arresting the disappearance of the sun and

defeating the powers of darkness. Today

we know that variations in day length are

natural phenomena; we are content that the

days willgrow longer again without any need

for clestial heroics.

Given this, it's hard to see why Atheists

should revere the Solstice in preference to

other discarded myths. Are we, as Naftel

suggests, too weak to disdain the christian's

holiday unless we can erect a childish coun-

ter-celebration of our own? Or are have we

become willingto embrace any foolishness,

as long as it is not a christian foolishness? I

think not.

Granted, there are no Druids who today

open city council meetings with prayer or

inject their creation myths into school cur-

ricula. While that makes them less danger-

ous than christians, it scarcely makes their

myths less intellectually respectable - nor

their holiday, the Solstice, any more fit for

contemporary Atheists.

Thomas Flynn

New York

This column, in the February, 1985, issue

of the

magazine,

featured

a

plea from Rufo

Baes of the Philippines for aid from fellow

Atheists. After the death of a baby (seven

months old) daughter, his home and small

independent business were destroyed in the

super

typhoon Undang on November 5,

1984. Subsequently, American Atheists initi-

ated aRujo Baes fund with an initial$100.00

contribution.

Since that time the following persons

have also contributed to this fund: •

Cali/ornia

Charles W Amlin $10.00

Ella May Elliott . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00

Colorado

BillieJean Smith. : . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00

Florida·

Howard R. Cahoon. . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00

American Atheist



Otto Mikosek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60.00

Georgia

Emily Stevenson . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00

Louisiana

Frank P. Sison 25.00

Maine

Floren P. Serafin $100.00

Maryland

Robert Merritt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00

Minnesota

Anonymous. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 20.00

Ohio

Doug Brassil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25.00

Nick Wolf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 15.00

Pennsylvania

Martin L. Bard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00

Robert

O.

Kutz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5.00

John R. Spengler 100.00

New Jersey

Herman J. Biunno. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00

W. Caldwell 10.00

Celeste Parisi 10.00

New York

Francis Smith. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.00

Samuel Cembalest .. . . . . . . . . . .. 50.00

Canada

Horst

J.

Wystrach 30.00

Mexico

Jon

C.

Allen 10.00

Thank

you,

each and everyone. It

is

difficult to transfer funds to the Philippines

and each transfer costs $8.00, whatever the

amount. Three such transfers have been

made. (The Atheist Center, of course, paid

for the transfer [eel.Upon receipt of the

funds Ruio has had to pay

1

to the

Philippine government.

Despite the difficulties attendant to the

venture, Rufo writes as follows.

January 8,1985 - The Philippine gov-

ernment is aiding the poorest typhoon vie-

tims in Roxas City, Capiz, in the form of

relief food and materials but in selective

basis only. Foreign countries are also send-

ing their aids but in limited area. Aids or

reliefs are very limited. Religious organiza-

tions are givingaids especially to the Catho-

licsand Protestants but Idon't belong to any

religious group.

The Philippine government is granting

calamity loans but until now the calamity

loan is not fully implemented due to eco-

nomic budgetary difficiency. We are facing

economic crisis due to foreign loans. The

Philippine government isbankrupt. I cannot

afford to transact a calamity loan due to high

interest.

January 18, 1985 - With your kind

permission, please reprint my letter of ap-

peal for humanitarian gift/donations for

three consecutive issues of the

American

Atheist

magazines.

Hoping that American Atheists will re-

sponse my appeal.

Thank you.

At the time of the receipt of that letter,

your editor was waiting to

see response

and

Austin, Texas

if money could

be

successfully transferred

to the Philippines (no currency of that

nation being available for purchase

in

the

United States.)

February 1, 1985 - Iam patient enough

to wait for the response of my appeal. Until

now, our emotional distress and worries

about the death ofour baby daughter cannot

be erased. With the calamity or strongest

typhoon, our house was not yet repaired.

We made an improvised repair but not

permanent repair.

For fellowship as brothers and sisters in

Atheist life, I do hope that they willrespond

to my appeal. I don't have any alternative

but to ask an appeal, giftor donation to my

fellowAtheists in America.

As time and years will pass, we can

recover our losses in money and property

but it will take four years to survive. The

year 1984 is a very sad experience and

traumatic year for us. Our struggle for many

years was only destroyed for one year.

Ways and means are being planned by me

and my wife to recover our losses and

savings. Self-reliance project or

sariling-

sikap

are the means for recover but it needs

money for capital.

Thank you for the kind help.

February 25, 1985 - Received your

letter together with the bank draft. We are

grateful. With this meagre amount' it will

help our problem and will aid my family.

Please continue the appeal to remind my

fellow Atheist for their unselfish gift or

donations.

For justification, the amount sent willbe

used as follows: 25% for the little and partial

repair of my damage house; 25% is used in

buying material/nails, wire for the damage

house; 25% is to be shared to my poor

sisters who were victims of the strongest

typhoons and the last 25% is to be used in

paying our debts for the expenses hospitali-

zation of my deceased daughter.

May I know to those American Atheists

who answered my appeal? I'm happy to

know them and to be acquainted to them.

Without their kind sympathy and love to

use, we were not able to repair our house. I

willsend a letter of thanks individually.

Ifthere are more gifts or aid coming, itwill

be used to finish the repair of my damage

house and ifthere are a lot of help, I willuse

the amount for my

sariling-sikap

or self-help

projects. This self-help project willhelp me

to recover my loss property: projects as

piggery, duckery and vegetable gardening.

March 9 - I have received the second

International draft in the amount of $300

U.S. With this large amount, we can pay all

our remaining accounts from the hospitals

for the expenses of our deceased daughter.

.We can also now finish the repair of our

damaged house by the strongest typhoon.

We are proud to say to our neighbors and

relatives that this aid was sent by my feilow

April,1985

American Atheists.

As to the piggery and duckery project,

this amount is just a little amount but I try

ways and means to improve my income and

to recover our loses. It will take me two or

three years to recover my losses but in

gradual process.

This help is a very unforgettable and

memorable aid in our life. The money was

deducted by one percent taxes and docu-

mentary stamps.

Rufo Baes

Philippines

The rate of exchange

is

such, that the

meagre amount of money sent to Rufo Baes

to date, ($770.00 - including another $100

from the American Atheist Center) has

been

able

to

assist him and his family a

great deal. But there is

no

reason that this

man should need

to

work from two to four

years tojust get even to the place he was

in

1984. If everyone of

our

readers would send

in

a $5.00 check the man could

be

put

in

good stead. Needless

to

say this would

be

evidence of international Atheist good will.

The American Atheist Center, about a

dozen years ago,

sent

$1,000 to the Indian

Atheist Center

in

the state of Andre Pra-

dish, India, when that was hit

by

a typhoon.

American Atheists should

be

able to

com-

pile several thousand for Rufo Baes. With

the current good rate of exchange for the

American dollar, it should place the family

insuch a position that it can walk with pride

- and using

sariling-sikap -

show the

human community how Atheists

do

it.

The editor and staff

NOTICE

Letters to the Editor must be either

questions or comments of general

concern to Atheists or Atheism.

Submissions should be brief and to the

point. Space limitations allow that each

letter should be two hundred words,

or preferably less. Please confine your

letters to a single issue only.

Mail them to: .

American Atheists

PO Box 2117

Austin, TX 78768·2117

Thank you.

Page 39



CLASSIFIED ADVERTISEMENT

Organizations

American Atheist Addiction Recovery

Groups Inc.

AMERICA's ONLY ALTERNATivE to GOV.

BACKED AA, FAITH HEALING (Killing)

Publishers of world's only

monthly newsletter for

alcoholics & other addicts;

their families and friends

Mem/Sub: 12 issues/$25

Sample 25 cents

AAARG, 2136 S. Birch St.

Denver, CO 80222

24·hr warm line (303) 758-6686

GALA

For membership and newsletter

information write:

Gay Atheist League of America

PO Box 14142

San Francisco, CA 94114

Classified Rates: 25 q: per word, $6.00

minimum. No boxes available.

Frequency Discount: (For classified) 10%

for three insertions, 20%for six.

Payment: Classified ads must be paid in

advance.

Publication policies: TheAmerican

Athe-

ist reserves the right to reject or cancel any

advertisement at any time for any reason.

No advocacy advertising will be accepted.

Samples of products may be requested.

Tear-sheets of ads will be sent to all clients.

We require street addresses for all adver-

tisers using box numbers.

AMERICANGAVATHEISTS

PO Box 66711, Houston, TX 77266

PO Box 8644, Austin, TX 78712

PO Box 248, Vlg. Sta., NYC, NYI0014

AGA membership is restricted to Atheists and

ONLY Atheists. Membership rate set at $10.00

per year by the Board of Directors.

Dial·a·Gay·Atheist (713) 527·9255

Publications

Nutrition myths are aswidespread as

religious myths. Protect yourself by

subscribing to Nutrition Forum, a

monthly newsletter covering practi-

cal topics with emphasis onexposing

fads and quackery. Prestigious edi-

torial staff. Send $30.00 for 12 is-

sues or SASE for details to:

NUTRITION FORUM

Box 1602. Allentown. PA. 1B105

THE MATCH

The Apex of

Atheistic

Anarchism

Available at the astonishingly

low price of only $6.00/year.

[Box 3488,Tucson,Az 85722]

Religious Jokes Totally irreverant gut-

busters about Jesus, Moses, et al. Warning

Puritans: Bad Language. Large collection

-$4.00. RMP Enterprises, Box 42296A,

Portland, OR 97242

\§IREADER

SERVICE

SEND A GIFT SUBSCRIPTION

To send a special gift subscription* of

American

Atheist

magazine, enter the name and address of the

recipient here:

Name __ ~~~~ _

(Please Print)

Address _

City _

State, Zip...,.. _

*By taking advantage of this special gift subscription offer,

you save $5.00. You may send the American Atheist magazine

to anyone in the U.S. for $20.00 for a one year period (for

orders outside of the U.S. add $5.00 for postage).

TO

SUBSCRIBE

TO AMERICAN

ATHEIST

MAGAZINE ORTO

RENEW

YOUR PRESENT SUBSCRIPTION

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

magazine address label) here:

Name __ ~~~~-----------------------------

(please Print)

Address _

City _

State, .Zip _

One-year subscription is $25.00.

For orders outside the U.S., add $5.00.

TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE

AMERICAN ATHEIST ORGANIZATION.

Membership categories are (check appropriate category):

o

Individual; $40/yr Couple**; $50/yr

o

65+/unemployed*; $20/yr

Sustaining; $100/yr

o

Student ; $12/yr Lifetime; $500

o Info packet only; free *Send photocopy of 1.0., etc.

**Include partners' name

Membership includes the American Atheist (monthly) News-

letter and subscription to the American Atheist

magazine - plus al l regular additional mailings that are made

by the organization.

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

newsletter address label) here:

Name __ ~~~~ _

(please Print)

Spouse/Partner Name _

(Please Print)

Address ---, _

City _

State Zip _

I enclose check or money order, or authorize a charge

(VISA or MASTERCARD only), for the

above

orders in

the amount of $ _

MCjVISA

# _

Bank Coda.; Exp. Date, _

Signature Date .

Texas state residents please add 5Vs%sales tax.

Page 40

April,1985

American Atheist



ATTENTION PLEASE

a MUST for Atheist reading

......................................................................................

T I T I l I l l i@ C Q 2 m @ ~ l 1 n ® l J U ~

f

® m

IE

W @ lS

W

C D l J U l l@ c i l l l® ~ l l i

l J U U @ lS n ~ C D l J U l 1 l l i @ n ~ l 1 ~

~ n l l l l i T I T I l i l l i @ l J U ~ ~ @ lS ~

by

Jon G . M ur r ay

and

M adalyn M ur r ay O Hair

by on Murray a ~ lir

Madaly Murray 0 H

359 PAGES

6.95

From 1959, the Murray-O'Hair family has been facing

the nation in television and radio interviews and talk/back

shows, in debates, panel discussions, lectures, forums,

informal gatherings, parties, banquets, conventions,

brunches, lunches, at podiums, microphones, loud speak-

ers. They have done this before private groups, fraternal

and business groups, organizations, colleges, universities,

women's dubs, in churches. They have spent hours with '

the hard media in newspaper offices, magazine editorial

rooms, in hotels, on the sidewalks and streets, at The

American Atheist Center, in courtrooms, on the steps of

government buildings. They have been accosted in shops,

stores, restaurants, business place, swimming pools, public

toilets. Even in airplanes, buses, trains, subways they have

been stopped for questioning.

Deluged with questions by mail, in newspapers, in

- magazines, in person, in a continuing waythey have come

to be the professional voices of American Atheism in our

time, in both our nation and throughout the world. This has

been a battering, for - by and large - the questions have

been more attacks than queries. The hostility which they

have faced has been the most extraordinary in our times.

Jon Murray was five years old when it started, in 1959. He

reached maturity in a swirl of hostility. But, by the time he

was a teenager he was facing it head on. Now as the

Director of the American Atheist Center he is as adept at

parry and thrust as is Madalyn Murray O'Hair. Together,

they have assembled their usual answers, just as they

usually give them on the air, in the public, or whereever

t delivered. As you study this book, and study it you must,

you will become aware for the first time what American

Atheism is. It is time that you had the lesson .

. .

..

......

.... . .

Tex as s ta te res id en ts p lease ad d 5~% s ales tax _0OPIES@ 6.95TOTAL , _

Make checks/money orders payable to: AMERICAN ATHEISTS. PO Box 2117. Austin. TX 78768

Name Or charge to my:

Address [ VISA or [ J MASTER CHARGE

City Number _

State Zip Expirat ion date _

Sgnature Bank no.lcode lettersi, -------,--



AMENDMENTI

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LA W RESPECTING

Eostra Eggs?

Many of the, popular observances of

Easter are pagan in origin. Some may be

traced to the feast of the goddess of

spring, Eostra. The (christian) church en-

deavored to give christian significance to

such of the pagan rites as could not be

rooted out (emphasis added) ... The great

bonfires, which formed apart ofthe pagan

festivals, had their counterpart in the

paschal tapers, or Easter candles, some-

times weighing 300 pounds ... The Easter

egg and Easter rabbit are also pagan in

origin.

American Peoples Encyclopedia

..

C/)

C/)

~

~

p . ..

~

: : r :

f - - <

american atheist magazine april 1985

Documents