May, 1984

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

MAY DAY AND THE CHRISTIANIZATION

OF SPRING

$2.95

AMERICAN ATHEISTS
is a non-profit, non-political, educational organization, dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of
state and church. We accept the explanation of Thomas Jefferson that the "First Amendment" to the
Constitution of the United States was meant to create a "wall of separation" between state and church.
American Atheists are organized to stimulate and promote freedom of thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices;
to collect and disseminate information, data and literature on all religions and promote a more thorough
understanding of them, their origins and histories;
to encourage the development and public acceptance of a human ethical system, stressing the mutual
sympathy, understanding
and interdependence
of all people and the corresponding responsibility of each
individual in relation to society;
to develop and propagate a culture in which man is the central figure who alone must be the source of
strength, progress and ideals for the well-being and happiness of humanity;
to promote the study of the arts and sciences and of all problems affecting the maintenance.
perpetuation and enrichment of human (and other) life;
to engage in such social, educational, legal and cultural activity as will be useful and beneficial to
members of American Atheists and to society as a whole.
Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and
aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method,
independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
Materialism declares that the cosmos is devoid of immanent conscious purpose; that it is governed by its own
inherent, immutable and impersonal laws; that there is no supernatural interference in human life; that man _.
finding his resources within himself - can and must create his own destiny. Materialism restores to man his
dignity and his intellectual integrity. It teaches that we must prize our life on earth and strive always to improve
it. It holds that man is capable of creating a social system based on reason and justice. Materialism's "faith" is in
man and man's ability to transform the world culture by his own efforts. This is a commitment which is in very
essence life asserting. It considers the struggle for progress as a moral obligation and impossible without noble
ideas that inspire man to bold creative works. Materialism holds that humankind's potential for good and for an
outreach to more fulfilling cult ural development is, for all practical purposes, unlimited.

********************************************************************
American Atheist Membership Categories
Life membership
Sustaining membership
Family/Couple membership
Individual membership
Senior Citizen/Unemployed*
Student membership*

membership

$500.00
$100.00/year
$50.00/year
$40.00/year
$20.00/year
$1 2.00/year

*1.0. required
All membership categories receive our monthly "Insider's Newsletter," membership card(s), a
subscription to American Atheist magazi ne 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

A Journal of Atheist News and Thought

Vol. 26, No.5

May, 1984

REGULAR FEATURES
Editorial
Reader Service
:
Ask A.A
News: Reagan Rallies Religionists and Roasts Reason,
Reagan's State of the Union Speech (Excerpt)
American Atheist Radio Series
Dial-An-Atheist
Letters to the Editor

2
4
5
6
27
28
39

'

SPECIAL FEATURES
There Is No God - Brian Lynch
Christian Principles - Fred P. Wortman
Children: Sex Education vs. Religion - Wayne McClintic
The Great Irish Sting - Frank Snider
The Story Behind the Bull - Henry Boessl
Mayday and the Christianization
of Spring - Madalyn Murray O'Hair
The Gideons and Our Public Schools - Madalyn Murray O'Hair

10
11
13
15
18
19
33

FEATURED COLUMNISTS
Inertia - Gerald Tholen
Suck - Michael Bettencourt
Holy Cow - Margaret Bhatty
Carlin on Christianity - Jeff Frankel
Editor
Robin Murray-O'Hair
Editor Emeritus
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Managing Editor
Jon G, Murray
Assistant Editor
Gerald Tholen
Poetry
Angeline Bennett
Gerald Tholen
Production Staff
Bill Kight
Richard M, Smith
Gloria Tholen
Non-Resident Staff
G, Stanley Brown
Jeff Frankel
Merrill Holste
Margaret Bhatty
Fred Woodworth
Clayton Powers
Michael Bettencourt

23
25
29
31

'.'

The American Atheist magazine is published monthly by the

American Atheist Press (an affiliate of American Atheists), 2210
Hancock Dr., Austin, TX 78756-2596, and 1984 by Society of
Separationists, Inc., a non-profit, non-political, educational organization dedicated to the complete and absolute separation of state
and church, (All rights reserved, Reproduction in whole or in part
without written permission is prohibited). Mailing address:
P_O_Box 2117/Austin, TX 78768-2117_Subscription is provided as
an incident of membership in the American Atheists organization.
Subscriptions alone are available at $25_00for one year terms only.
(Frequency monthly. Library and institutional discount: 50%.)
Manuscripts submitted must be typed, double-spaced and accompanied by a stamped, self-addressed envelope, A copy of
American Atheist Magazine Writers Guidelines is available on
request. The editors assume no responsibility for unsolicited
manuscripts,
The American Atheist magazine
is indexed in
Monthly Periodical Index
ISSN: 0332-4310

NEW ADDRESS: (please print)

Name

Address

City
State

_
Zip

OLD ADDRESS: (please print)

Name

Address

City
State

_
Zip

ARE YOU
MOVING?
Please notify us six
weeks in advance to
ensure uninterrupted
delivery,
Send us
both your old and
new addresses. Ifpossible, attach old label
from a recent magazine issue in the bottom address space
provided.

ON THE COVER
Dr. Charles Knowlton: Since the
earliest days of recorded history, diseases and natural catastrophes have
been feared as "punishments of the
gods_" In every era the "priests" have
cautioned that prayer and/or sacrifices
were the only measure of protection
open to mankind and that "salvation"
was available only to those who obeyed
the whims of (mythological) supernatural
entities. Naturally it followed that heresy,
in any degree, was a "sinful transgression" against the desires of the" entities,"
and was therefore considered a heinous
crime against the culture. "Medical practice" was therefore deemed a duty of the
priests, the fakirs and the witchdoctors
of religion.
However, as early as 98-138 a.d., Soranus of Ephesus, Greece began to introduce Materialist ideas into the practice of
medicine. He wrote discourses concerning the "Diseases of Women," part of
which he referred to as "Gynaecology."
He touched even upon subjects such as
abortifacients and measures to prevent
conception. For the most part, the dawn
of christianity attacked and destroyed
these noble primitive human efforts to
gain insights into this important area of
human knowledge.
Sixteen hundred years later Charles
Knowlton tried, once again, to so enlighten humankind. His work was filled
with physiological and scientific information aimed at easing the pressures of this
most urgent sociological problem -overpopulation. His reward was immediate arrest and imprisonment at the hands
of the still primitive-minded authority of
his day, his ideas still being considered
"obscene," "ungodly," and "immoral."
Feminine physiological circumstances,
especially menstruation and the period
following childbirth, were still regarded
as "unclean." Nevertheless, his pioneer
efforts in this field added more links to
the chain of human knowledge and understanding.
American Atheists herewith commemorate the birth of Charles Knowlton and
the "birth" of contraceptive medicine in
the United States. It is unfortunate that
many more in the medical field lacked his
courage and determination -- perhaps
human suffering would have been significantly reduced sooner. (See related
book ad on the inside back cover.)
Gerald Tholen

Mail to: American Atheists/P.O. Box 2117/Austin, TX 78768-2117

Austin, Texas

May, 1984

Page 1

EDITORIAL /

Jon

Garth Murray

GAWD GIVEN POLITICS

his year is an election year and during election years one tends to
get sick of reading one article and editorial after another about
the candidates. I think that the most disappointing part about all of the
media fanfare during an election year is that none of the coverage ever
really tells you anything in depth about any of the candidates.
Reporting is superficial at best. The "people" reaHy never get the
information they need, in an unbiased manner, to seriously evaluate
any candidate in whom they may place their trust via their vote. We
elect persons on the basis of physical appearance and sloganeering.
When I was a little boy I remember my grandmother voting for
Kennedy for president because he was so handsome. I will never
forget that as long as I live. Iwonder how many million votes he got, in
a tight race, because he was more "handsome" than his opponent. I
know that we have some of the same kind of rationale used with an
actor president like Reagan.
I don't see the nature of the political process changing any time
soon from being based upon a series of popularity contests being run
in front of a politically illiterate populace. Most of the persons who will
be out there pulling voting levers in November would not even
recognize a section of the Constitution ifpresented with it, and could
not even tell you the difference between a true democracy and a
republic or an oligarchy. Most persons are also religiously illiterate. A
baptist could not tell you the difference between his belief system and
that of a presbyterian or a methodist for anything in the world, either
from a contemporary or historical viewpoint.
Considering these things which almost everyone knows and
simultaneously ignores, it is not strange at all that for the first time
since perhaps the Eisenhower administration of the 1950s, religious
"moral" issues are emerging as an overt part of this year's campaign.
The press is, for the most part, not recognizing what is going on and
most people are unconcerned as usual. Nonetheless, this year's
presidential race is one of the most overtly religious the nation has
ever seen. The religiosity of this year's campaign revolves around
three key issues. The issues are: (1) government sponsored prayer in
public school, (2) the passage of an antiabortion amendment to the
U.S. Constitution, and (3) tuition tax credits for parents with children
in private parochial schools on both state and federal tax returns.
President Reagan received aid in his '80 campaign from the nation's
evangelical community. He is now faced with the problem of making
good on some of his promises with which he has had some bad luck
against a reluctant Congress. This is not a new problem for an
incumbent. Many a man has come to the White House with the best
of intentions toward returning the favor of campaign dollars with
legislation, only to find out that it is easier promised than done to get
some 500 other politicians to see things the same way. The only thing
that can be done is to go back to the same crowd and ask them for
their aid again so that you can try to "come through" in your second
terms. Reagan is not doing anything new from that perspective, but
Page 2

May, 1984

he is breaking new ground with respect to the issues on which he is

renewing his pledge.
Never before in our nation's history has any incumbent used a
forum such as a State of the Union address to stump on "moral"
political issues. A State of the Union speech is just as the name
implies, an opportunity for the president to tell Congress how things
are going for the country as a whole. The intrusion of "moral" political
issues in such a presentation is unprecedented and inappropriate.
Yet, in his January 25th State of the Union address to Congress
Reagan gratuitously inserted remarks on all three of the election year
"moral" issues. In no less than sixteen places in the text of his remarks
he referred to god and "traditional (religious) values." On the big
three issues he said specifically:
1) "I will continue to press for tuition tax credits to expand
opportunities for families, and to soften the double payment for
those paying public school taxes and private school tuition."
2) "... each day, your members observe a 200year-old
tradition meant to signify America is one nation under god. I
must ask: ifyou can begin your day with a member of the clergy
standing right here (eading you in prayer, then why can't
freedom to acknowledge god be enjoyed again by children in
every schoolroom across this land?"
3) "During our first three years, we have joined bipartisan
efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. I
know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can
be proven that an unborn child is not a livinghuman being, can
we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet
offered such proof. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary."
I think that something must be said about each of these three
positions from what is a more generally logical than a specifically
Atheist perspective.
The standard argument for tuition tax credits is the cry of "double
payment." Should one be compelled to pay for a school system that
their child does not attend? The answer is very simple indeed. It is the
same as the answer to the question of why should someone who does
not own a car, or know how to drive, pay taxes for street and highway
maintenance. The food they eat comes to the store in a truck over
those roads, the police that protect them use those roads, the fire
truck that would come to their aid would have to use those roads.
Roads in general are necessary for the maintenance of the standard of
living expected by everyone in the community. In the same way
education, in general, contributes to the standard of living of the
entire community. When you go to the store you expect the clerk to
be able to make change at the register. Free, universal, governmentsponsored education provides the basis for the acquiring of that basic
knowledge needed by any individual to be a productive member of
society. When someone chooses a specialized type of private
education for their children, they have no right to say that they want
The American Atheist

to stop contributing, like everyone else, to the upkeep of the standard

of literacy current in their community. Many of the proponents of
tuition tax credit plans are actually saying that they could care less
about the educational standards for their community as a whole.
They are being selfish in a very crude and uncaring way. "I will
educate my children as I see fitin a private environment, and ifthe rest
of the community is illiterate I don't give a damn. If someone can't
afford a private school, tough! I don't have to pay for their education,
too." says the tax credit proponent.
"Freedom to acknowledge god ... " is not the issue at hand in the
school prayer controversy. All school children have always had and
always will have the individual opportunity to "acknowledge god"
privately at any time during the school day. They can pray over their
lunch tray ifthey are in the habit at home of praying at meal time. They
can say a little prayer before a test. They can pray in the hall in
between classes or on many other occasions. That is not the issue.
The issue is that the fundamentalists and Reagan want government
sanctioned school prayer. They desire for the teacher to set aside a
specific time each day for prayer - government sanctioned and
sponsored time for prayer. Prayer and indeed the belief in a god or a
god-system is not to be allowed to be optional for Americans like
playing golfor driving a car. Piety is being portrayed as an integral part
of being an American. Prayer on a truly individual voluntary basis is
not good enough. The government of the United States must officially
acknowledge and sanction prayer. That is precisely what the First
Amendment to the Constitution prohibits. Not a single media source
that I know of has seen the distinction between "voluntary" prayer,
which has always been a reality, and government sponsored and
sanctioned prayer.
Abortion is not the issue, either. Birth control information, its
availability and dissemination, is the true issue. It is essential for both
male and female to know the full extent of the consequences of the
sex act and to be adequately informed in how to deal with those
consequences from a preventive perspective. Abortion is not a birth
control method. It is a last resort alternative when birth control
methods have failed. Far more lives of children and parents both are
affected adversely by unwanted pregnancies than by abortions. An
unwanted or unplanned child can have its entire life and the
remainder of the lives of both parents adversely affected by its mere
presence. It is also strange indeed that the same administration that is
willingto stand up for the lives of "innocent fetuses" does not give a
damn about the lives of the Marines lost in Beirut or the lives that may
be lost in a nuclear exchange.
Despite all the arguments, the "moral" issue trilogy marches on this
election year. With the recent history of fundamentalist involvement
with the Republican side of the ticket this is not unexpected. The
Democratic response, or rather lack thereof, is what is unexpected.
The only Democratic candidate to really be making anything at allout
of religion is the rev. Jesse Jackson. That is not unusual. Martin
Luther King used the black churches as a means for his rise to fame,
and Jackson is merely following along in those footsteps. Black
churches have proven to be a major source of support for him as a
candidate. Two of the major denominations have for all practical
purposes endorsed him. Church leaders in many black communities
have indicated that they are quite willing to use their pulpits and
offering plates to push Jackson. When he appears at a church on the
campaign trail, he goes into the traditional Southern black pulpit act,
black slang and all, in an obvious King imitation in almost "Rich Little"
fashion. Jackson speaks openly of trying to "save the soul" of the
nation.
The rest of the Democratic lineup seems to feel that religious
imagery should not be such an integral part of their campaigns. Their
political advisers seem to feel that a middle-of-the-road, noncommital
stance on religion is best. The prevailing thought seems to be that the
middle-of-the-road or left-leaning voter may have concerns about
backing a candidate who might be perceived as being "too religious."
Americans, however, have always liked to believe in a general sense
that their presidents "believe." Candidates have traditionally therefore played into the hands of that general expectation on the part of
Austin, Texas

voters. No major or "serious" candidate has ever had the guts enough
to challenge that expected adherence to a "belief system" as a
subconscious prerequisite for electability. Recent polls on the subject
asked the question of voters if they would vote for a woman or an
Atheist for president. The majority said yes to the former, and no to
the latter.
Looking beyond Jackson, George McGovern is the son of a
wesleyan methodist minister. He attended Garrett theological
seminary in Evanston, Illinois and as a young man was a student
preacher at the methodist church in Diamond Lake, Illinois. Gary
Hart of Colorado is the product of a strict evangelical rearing. He was
brought up in the church of the nazarene and graduated from
Bethany nazarene college in Oklahoma. He attended Yale divinity
school before transferring into the law school. Ernest Hollings is a
lutheran but comes from South Carolina, a state in which paying
homage to the southern baptist persuasion is an accepted part of
political life. Reuben Askew, who is Florida's former governor, has
shared the crusade stage with BillyGraham and the campus-crusadefor-christ's Bill Bright. Sen. Alan Cranston of California, however,
makes the least of his religiosity. His grandfather was a congregationalist minister, but the senator does not belong to any
church. This does not seem to be a liabilityto him in his home state of
California, though.
John Glenn can only be characterized as an understated
presbyterian. While in Washington he occasionally attends the
national presbyterian church, which is sometimes called the "Church
of the Presidents," but he does so more for the usual political
expediency of "being seen there" than any genuine interest. When
testifying before the Senate's Space Committee back in 1962,
however, he said, "My religion is not one of the fire engine type - not
one to be called on in an emergency and then put god back into the
woodwork .... I am trying to live as best I can .... My peace has been
made with my maker for a number of years." Later in 1964 he told a
baptist church in Texas, "The highest form of progress is in the realm
of the spirit, not science." His religion may be understated, but it is
obviously psychologically alive and well. Glenn is a graduate of a
presbyterian school, Muskingum College, in New Concord, Ohio, his
home town. Despite that, he supports the 1973 Supreme Court
decision on abortion but modifies that position in a clasic politician's
style by saying that a woman's decision on abortion should be made in
consultation with her husband and her "religious advisor." He is
quoted as saying that he will continue to oppose school prayer
legislation until the Supreme Court clearly resolves "remaining"
constitutional issues. This position is again a politician's stance. The
Supreme Court did resolve the issue in 1963 but he must make his
position one of being open to doubt on the issue of the validity of that
decision so as not to scare away any votes. On the third of the big
three moral issues he feels that tuition tax credits would "retreat from
our commitment to a system of free, universal education," as he has
stated in a position paper.
Walter Mondale grew up.in a methodist parsonage but now calls
himself a presbyterian. He is a member of grace-trinity church in
Minneapolis which has a combined presbyterian and american
baptist congregation. He was an active member of that congregation
while he was Minnesota's attorney general and U.S. senator. He still
makes what he terms "a sizeable" financial contribution to that
church each year. He has recently committed himself to a "freedom
of choice" position on abortion which is the same position endorsed
by both the united methodist and presbyterian denominations. While
he was vice-president, in a speech to the american lutheran church's
biennial convention which was held in Moorhead, Minnesota in 1978,
he said that there was a "direct, powerful, indispensable and
persistent" relationship between "religious principle and government
policies." He said that in general U.S. policies on human rights,
foreign aid, peace negotiations and arms limitations have always
reflected christian principles.
.
Although some of the Democratic contenders like Hart, McGovern, and Askew did come from conservative christian homes where
they were taught a strict morality along with a firm belief that the bible

May, 1984

Page 3

was inerrant and school prayers were assumed, not debated, none of
them is now politically a religious hard-liner. But still, they all exude an
old-fashioned American patriotism posited on faith in god and the
"traditional" judaeo-christian values erroneously assumed as essentials for the American "way of life."
The point of all of this is that religion in general is being perpetuated
as an assumed necessity to political success. Candidates on both
sides of our one-party system go on election after election as ifreligion
and platform stands on religious or quasireligious issues were
indispensable. How about leaving religion and the issues it encompasses up to the individual and confining political rhetoric to
issues of universal concern like the economy and the health,
education and welfare of all the people? I am not saying that the big
three religious issues of election year 1984 are not important. From a
separation of state and church view, they are of extreme importance.
I still, however, don't feel that they ought to be used as the primary
basis for electing one candidate over another into a position as one of
the three branches of our government. The use of these issues,
overtly by one side and covertly by the other, makes a statement
about the American people. Ifthe Republicans can call school prayer,
abortion and tuition tax credits as trump card for the '84 campaign
and the Democrats to a man must follow suit, that makes an ominous
statement about our society. What it says is that Americans are so
conditioned about religion that it is the single subject that cannot be
put to open debate. The Republicans know that the Democrats dare
not challenge them directly on their use of religion in campaign
platforms. So, what are the Democrats doing? They are ignoring the
issues of prayer, abortion and tuition tax credits and hitting on
economics. That willbe their fatal mistake. They should openly and
directly challenge the use of issues with positions based on biased
religious emotionalism in the campaign. They know they can't. What
does this in turn say about the American people. It says that they are
basically too conditioned and too down right dumb to have political
struggles based above the level of emotional popularity contests.
Instead of trying to upgrade people out of that rut, both sides in the
political arena take advantage of the fact.

"... religion in general is being perpetuated as

an assumed necessity to political success ....
How about leaving religion and the issues it
encompasses up to the individual and confining political rhetoric to issues of universal
concern like the economy, and the health,
education and welfare of all the people."
This is why most of those of us who think, a dying pastime, get so
fed up with it all that we simply drop out of the process. That is a
mistake as well. By not voting we leave the process by default to the
mindless. We need to get into the process however we can and start
screaming our heads off for change. We may be crying in vain for
generations but the process must start someplace, sometime.
Atheists should be leading in the effort to stand up and speak out at
one political gathering after another, asking the question "Why does
the system need to go on in an irrational manner motivated only by
preserving tradition?" To hell with tradition.
I would personally like to see Atheists get more politically involved
in an organized way, a way that willnot jeopardize the maintenance of
the base of operations we have already established. How to do that is
a difficult question, but I feel that it is one that can be addressed and
for which a solution may be found. If we don't do so, we may find
ourselves in the ultimate position of joining the religious or dropping
out of society altogether even to the extent of fleeing the country.
Alamo-type stands are much more characteristic of Atheists than
running, and I for one don't plan to start any new traditions. ~

Gm READER

SEND A GIFT SUBSCRIPTIONI

To send a special gift subscription" of American
Atheist magazine, enter the name and address of the
recipient here:
Name
Address'

May, 1984

~---------------------------------

(Please Print)

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 SUBSeR/BETO AMERICAN
A THEIST MAGAZINE OR TO 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
o 65+/unemployed*; $20/yr
o Student": $12/yr
o Info packet only; free

0 Couple**; $50/yr
0 Sustaining; $100/yr
0 Lifetime; $500
"Send photocopy of I.D., etc.
**Include partners' name

Membership includes the American Atheist (monthly)

Newsletter and subscription
to the American Atheist
magazine - plus all regular additional mailings that are
made by the organization.

Enter your name and address (or attach your old

magazine address label) here:
Name __ ~--~~--------------~--------------(Please Print)

Spouse/ Partner Name

Address'

(Please Print)

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 $
MC/VISA#

Bank Code'
Signature

Page 4

SERVICE

Exp. Date,
.

_
Date

The American Atheist

ASK A.A.
Beginning with this issue, this new column is joining the magazine as a new feature. It is distinctly different from
"Letters to the Editor" where you state your opinion. This column is designed to answer your questions as to why
American Atheists does the things that it does, takes the positions that it takes, or practices the customs that it practices. It is
not a "Dear Abby" column, since it will not be giving advice. The letters being answered here, now, are illustrative of what
we consider typical: The "Ask A.A." question - with "A.A." replies.
Dear American Atheists:
I have just received your packet
vertising Atheist literature
including

adthe

American Atheist. According to the blurb

we should "Thrill to read that great Atheists
have always been in our nation" and then
you go on to include Andrew Carnegie
among their number. When one considers
the perfidious tactics and methods he
employed in extracting his massive personal
fortune from American workers (the Homestead strike, for example) I'm wondering
just exactly in what sense you consider him
"great." The fact that he used a small
portion of his immense wealth to endow
some philanthropic enterprises does not
compensate in my thinking for the bloody
and tragic manner in which he stole that
wealth originally.
Ibelieve, as an Atheist, that your choice of
Carnegie was ill-considered.
John Houser,
Arizona
Dear John:
Our choice of Andrew Carnegie as an
Atheist to be given recognition is based on
hisfounding of a free public library system in
most of the major cities in our nation. In the
final analysis only the increase of knowledge among all people everywhere will
defeat religion, which is the enemy of all
people, everywhere, in all times.
We know what a ruthless s.o.b. Andrew
Carnegie was. The Homestead strike is
among the personal memoirs of the family
of the editor emeritus, who came from
generations of union organizers and union
agitators.
Although his endowment for the building
and maintenance of the libraries constituted, as you pointed out, only a small
portion of immense wealth wrung from the
exploitation of the common man, that
endowment was (1) ultimately against the
interest of everything that Carnegie represented and was (2) more than the ruthless
industrialists of his time were doing.
If an Atheist engages in activity deleterious to the human community he should
be condemned for that. Your condemnation of Carnegie he well deserves. Many
books have been written concerned with
this man and with harsher judgments than
you make. They, and you, are both correct.
However, he did found and fund free
public libraries everywhere. These were so
important during the first decades of the
Austin, Texas

20th century, up to the time of the Second

World War, as a primary source of information, for diffusion of knowledge, that
they must be recognized as a major resource in fitting the populace into our era.
Today, the time of the great libraries is over.
Located in inner cities, they are not accessible and have budgets which barely
keep them alive. No person who is young
today knows the impact of them in the still
developing cities of the early 1900s.
Fault Carnegie. We do. Atheists are
realists. But also give him credit for having
endowed the libraries which otherwise
would not have existed - for no one else on
the scene at that time, including the government, gave a damn. He did at least that
much, then, and deserves recognition for it.
Editor

Dear A.A.:
Iwould appreciate knowing more about
your organization. Iam an atheist (sic) but
not a "joiner." Saw a recent appearance by
M.M.O.H. on PBS Late Night and was
intrigued.
Stuart Spindel
Kentucky
Dear Double A:
No, I don't want to eat with you for $50 (at
your fundraiser). Ido want to take my name
off your mailing list. Iam a nonbeliever but
not a joiner and also resent the hate
literature you peddle. It makes you stoop as
low as the crowd you oppose.
Hans Steenborg
California
Dear American Atheists:
You know, Ireally would be interested in
joining you if I didn't sense the distinctly
religious spirit of your mission. The giveaway, to me, is your spelling of atheist (sic)
and atheism (sic) with capital "A"s, as
though you have to get up there with the
Christians (sic) and Jews (sic).
Iam an atheist (sic) and proud of it.
Janet Boulton
New York

Dear Stuart, Hans, and Janet:

Persons capable of enthusiasm for their
ideas have always been assailed by those
who do not have that capacity. Name the
May, 1984

greats of our nation: Albert Einstein, Thomas Alva Edison, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Mark Twain, Eugene V. Debs, Margaret
Sanger, Luther Burbank, Susan B. Anthony, Henry Ford; Andrew Carnegie Atheists all - and one will find they were
charged with having the "fervor" of religion.
You mistake enthusiastic activity of
mentally healthy persons with the hysteric
reactions of neurotic and borderline psychotics. Apathetic persons, who fear commitment to or involvement with ideas, mus-t
take pseudointellectual refuge somewhere
to hide these fears. Rather than take a
position openly against ideas which have
retarded human progress but which, unfortunately, are still in the seat of power,
they cry aloud, with dismay, "A pox on both
your houses." Such inactivity always supports the entrenched position under assault
by reformers or innovators who fight for the
amelioration of the human condition in a
hard and cruel world. Those of us who are
out in the fray know that you have already
committed yourselves to the side of the
winner. You are the timid survivors who fit
your restricted lebensraum around themselves in the shape decreed by the victor_
The future belongs to Atheism - and in
that millenium, you will say, "I was always
with you." However, should our major
battles go awry, and we be forced back into
a medievalist type religious culture, you will
look at the anointed god and say, "I was
always with you."
The progressive thrust of culture has
always been in the hands of those with a
willingness to commit themselves to forwarding it with the joy of enthusiasm; and
the freeloaders and free-riders have always
been an impediment to that progress.
When we receive letters such as this, we
breathe a sigh of relief that the persons
involved don't burden the cause with their
baggage of fear and trepidation.
Editor

Address questions to:

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

PageS

NEWS

REAGAN RALLIES RELIGIONISTS

AND ROASTS REASON
In a continuing way Ronald Reagan is shocking both the media and the public as he reveals the religious fundamentalism of
his mind: his commitment to a viewpoint of black or white, good or evil as he views the world. And, he would ruthlessly eradicate that which he sees as "evil. " When he was governor of California all of this was exhibited in his attitude on the free-speech
movement against the war in Vietnam on the Berkeley campus. He said, "Preservation of free speech does not justify letting
beatniks and advocates of sexual orgies, drug usage and filthy speech disrupt the academic community."
He wanted to set up a
commission to investigate Berkeley. "We'd be pretty naive to rule out the part Communists play in these demonstrations. " He
went so far as to ask for a declaration of war against Vietnam so that "the anti-Vietnam demonstrations ... would be treasonable. "and, of course, treason is a capital crime punishable by death.
When the disturbances came to the Santa Barbara campus, Reagan said, "If there's going to be a blood bath, let's get it over
with. " The attitude and the opinions have stayed with him through the presidency. At the time he ran for election, the public
naively took his religion for a benign commitment despite the fact that he was championed by the most reactionary, fundamentalist and ugly evangelistic factions of christianity in the nation.
Reagan has twice given speeches which are shocking. The first was to the 41st annual convention of the National Association
of Evangelicals, in Orlando, Florida, March 8, 1983. In this speech he divided the world into camps of good and evil with youknow-who being the "evil empire. " In that speech he said, "There is sin in the world. And we are enjoined by scripture and the
lord jesus to oppose it with all our might. " Evil lifted its head in Grenada and although Reagan had said in the same speech that
"I believe in intercessionary prayer. " his interceding was with the U. S. Army. He has more widely dispersed the U. S. military
throughout the world than ever before in our history during an alleged "time of peace. "
In this, the second speech, again, he plays on the theme of "Better dead than red. " The most horrifying aspect of it, however,
is that he speaks in terms of killing children .. He absolutely believes that we are at war with the U.S.S.R. and he said so on Januuary 29, 1981. ''The inescapable truth is that we are at war (with the Soviet Union,) and we are losing that war because we don't
or won't realize we are in it. ...
There can only be one end to the war we are in .,. victory or defeat. " and he means "red or
dead" - ominously - at a time when he has his finger on the button to make the choice.
The New York Times, in a recent editorial, began to see what was really sinister and evil and opined that his aim in our own
nation "can only be to prevent debate, to abridge the rights of individuals and to cheat the nation of a rational choice of policies. " To which American Atheists can only add, "We told you so. "

REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT

AT THE NATIONAL RELIGIOUS BROADCASTERS
January 30, 1984
Grand Ballroom -

Sheraton Washington

Hotel -

CONVENTION

Washington.

DC

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Brandt Gustavson, Dr. Ben Armstrong, and ladies and gentlemen, distinguished guests. Thank you all
very much.
I'm going to depart from what I was going to say, or begin with here, for justa moment to tell a little story. And I hope Pat Boone won't
mi nd. I'm goi ng to tell it on hi m. (La ug hter)(Editor's note: We do not know whether these self-laudatory remarks in the written version that
the American Atheist Center possesses were inserted before or after the actual speech)
Some years ago when there was a subversive element that had moved into the motion picture industry and Hollywood, there were
great meetings that were held. There was one that was held in the Los Angeles Sports Arena. Sixteen thousand people were there,
and thousands of them up in the balcony were young people.
And Pat Boone stood up, and in speaking to this crowd he said, talking of Communism, that he had daughters - they were little girls
then - and he said, "I love them more than anything on earth." But he said, "I would rather," - and I thought, "I know what he's
going to say and oh, you must not say that." And yet I had underestimated him. He said, "I would ratherthat they die now believing in
God than live to grow up under Communism and die one day no longer believing in God." (Applause)
There was a hushed moment, and then 16,000 people, all those thousands of young people, came totheir feet with a roar that you
just - it thrills you through and through.
Well, I thank you very much. This is a moment I've been looking forward to. I remember with such pleasure the time we spent
together last year. Today, I feel like I'm doing more than returning for a speech. I feel like I'm coming home. (Applause)
Homecoming -I think it is the proper word. Under this roof, some four thousand of us are kindred spirits united by one burning
belief: God is our father; we are his children; together, brothers and sisters, we are one family. (Applause)
Being family makes us willing to share the pain of problems we carry in our hearts. But families also come together in times of joy
and we can celebrate such a moment today. Hope is being reborn across this land by a mighty spiritual revival that's made you the
miracle of the entire broadcasting industry.
I might say, your success and my celebrating another birthday about this time of year are both a source of annoyance to a number of
people. (Laughter)
Let me set the record straight on your account: The spectacular growth of CBN and PTL and Trinity, of organizations that produce
religious programs for radio and television, not to mention the booming industry in Christian books, underlines a far-reaching change
in our country.
Page 6

May, 1984

The American Atheist

Americans yearn to explore life's deepest truths. And to say their entertainmenttheir idea of entertainment is sex and violence
and crime is an insult to their goodness and intelligence. We are people who believe love can triumph over hate, creativity over
destruction and hope over despair. And that's why so many millions hunger for your product, God's good news.
In his book, The Secret Kingdom, Pat Robertson told us, "There can be peace; there can be plenty; there can be freedom. They will
come the minute human beings accept the principles of the invisible world and begin to live by them in the visible world." More and
more of us are trying to do this. George Gallup has detected a rising tide of interest and involvement in religion among all levels of
society.
I was pleased last year to proclaim 1983 the "Year of the Bible." But. you know, a group called the ACLU severely criticized me for
doing that. Well, I wear their indictment like a badge of honor. (Applause)
I believe I stand in pretty good company. (Laughter) Abraham Lincoln called the Bible, "The best gift God has given to man. But for
it." he said, "we could not know right from wrong."
Like that image of George Washington kneeling in prayer in snow at Valley Forge, Lincoln described a people who knew it was not
enough to depend on their own courage and goodness. They must also look to God their father and preserver. And their faith to walk
with him, and trust in his word, brought them the blessings of comfort. power, and peace that they sought.
The torch of their faith has been passed from generation to generation. "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth, but the word of our
God shall stand forever." More and more Americans believe that loving God in their hearts is the ultimate value.
Last year, not only were Year-Of-The-Bible activities held in every state of the union - but more than 25 states and 500 cities
issued their own Year-Of-The-Bible proclamations. One schoolteacher, Mary Gibson in New York, raised $4,000 to buy Bibles for
working people in downtown Manhattan.
1983 was the year more of us read the good book. Can we make a resolution here today-that
1984will bethe year we put its great
truths into action? (Applause)
My experience in this office I hold has only deepened a belief I've held for many years: Within the covers of that single book are all
the answers to all the problems that face us today - if we'd only read and believe. (Applause)
Let's begin at the beginning. God is the center of our lives; the human family stands at the center of society; and our greatest hope
for the future is in the faces of our children. Seven thousand Poles recently came to the christening of Maria Victoria Walesa, daughter
of Danuta and Lech Walesa, to express their belief that solidarity of the family remains the foundation of freedom.
God's most blessed gift to his family is the gift Q,flife. He (sic) sent us the Prince of Peace as a babe in a manger. I've said that we must
be cautious in claiming God is on our side. I think the real question we must answer is, are we on His (sic) side? (Applause)
I know what I'm aboutto say now is controversial, but I have to say it. This nation cannot continue turning a blind eye and a deaf ear
to the taking of some 4,000 unborn children's lives every day. That's one every 21 seconds. (Applause) One every 21 seconds. We
cannot pretend that America is preserving her first and highest ideal, the belief that each life is sacred, when we've permitted the
deaths of fifteen million helpless innocents since the Roe versus Wade decision.
Fifteen million children who will never laugh, never sing, never know the joy of human love, will never strive to heal the sick, feed
the poor, or make peace among nations. Abortion has denied them the first and most basic of human rights. We are all infinitely poorer
for their loss.
There's another grim truth we should face up to. Medical science doctors confirm that when the lives ofthe unborn are snuffed out,
they often feel pain, pain that is long and agonizing.
This nation fought a terrible war so that BlackAmericans would be guaranteed their God-given rights. Abraham Lincoln recognized
that we could not survive as a free land when some could decide whether others should be free or slaves. Well, today, another
question begs to be asked. How can we survive as a free nation when some decide that others are not fit to live and should be done
away with?
I believe no challenge is more important to the character of America than restoring the right to life to all human beings. (Applause)
Without that right, no other rights have meaning. "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for such is the
kingdom of God." I will continue to support every effort to restore that protection, including the Hyde-Jepsen Respect-Life bill. I've
asked for your all-out commitment, forthe mighty power of your prayers, so that together we can convince our fellow countrymen that
America should, can and will preserve God's greatest gift.
Let us encourage those among us who are trying to provide positive alternatives to abortion - groups like Mom's House, House of
His Creation in Pennsylvania, Jim McKee's Sav-A-Life in Texas - which I mentioned to you last year. Begun asa response to the call
of a conscience, Sav-A-Life has become a crisis counseling center and saved 22 children since it was founded in 1981.
I think we're making progress in upholding the sanctity of life of infants born with physical or mental handicaps. the Department of
Health and Human Services has now published final regulations to address cases such as Baby Doe in Bloomington. That child was
denied lifesaving surgery and starved to death because he had Down's Syndrome and some people didn't think his life would be worth
living.
Not too long ago I was privileged to meet a charming little girl- tiny little girl- filled with the joy of living. She was on crutches, but
she swims, she rides horseback, and her smile steals your heart. She was born with the same defects as those "Baby Does" who have
been denied the right to life. To see her - to see the love on the faces of her parents, and their joy in her - was the answer to this
particular question.
Secretary Heckler and Surgeon General Koop deserve credit for designing regulations providing basic protections to the least
among us. And the American Academy of Pediatrics and the National Association of Children's Hospitals have now affirmed a
person's mental or physical handicap must not be the basis for deciding to withhold medical treatment. (Applause)
Let me assure you of something else: We want parents to know their children will not be victims of child pornography. I look forward
to signing a new bill now awaiting final action in a conference committee that will tighten our laws against child pornography. And
we're concerned about enforcement of all the federal anti-obscenity laws. Over the past year, the United States Customs Service has
increased by 200 percent its conviscation (sic) of obscene materials coming in across our borders. We're also intensifying our drive
against crimes offamily violence and sexual abuse. I happen to believe that protecting victims is just as important as safeguarding the
rights of defendants. (Applause)
Restorinq the right to life and protecting people from violence and exploitation are important responsibilities. But as members of
God's family, we share another and that is helping to build a foundation of faith and knowledge to prepare our children for the
challenges of life. "Train up a child in the way he should go," Solomon wrote, "and when he is old he will not depart from it."

Austin, Texas

May, 1984

Page 7

If we're to meet the challenge of educating for the space age, of opening eyes and minds to treasures of literature, music and poetry
and of teaching values of faith, courage, responsibility,
kindness and love, then we must meet these challenges as one people and
parents must take the lead. And I believe they are.
I know one thing I'm sure most of us agree on: God, source of all knowledge, should never have been expelled from our children's
classrooms. (Applause) The great majority of our people support voluntary prayer in schools.
We hear of cases where courts say it is dangerous to allow students to meet in Bible study or prayer clubs. And then there was the
case of that kindergarten class that was reciting a verse. They said, "We thank you forthe flowers so sweet. We thank you for the food
we eat. We thank you for the birds that sing. We thank you, God, for everything." A court of appeals ordered them to stop. They were
supposedly violating the Constitution of the United States.
Well, Teddy Roosevelt told us, "The American people are slow to wrath, but when their wrath is once kindled, it burns like a
consuming flame. (Applause)
I think Americans are getting angry. I think they have a message and Congress better listen. We are a government of, by andforthe
people. And people want a constitutional
amendment making it unequivocally clear our children can hold voluntary prayer in every
school across this land. (Applause) And if we could get God and discipline back in our schools, maybe we could get drugs and violence
out. (Applause)
I know that some believe that voluntary prayer in schools should be restricted to a moment of silence. We already have the right to

Page 8

May, 1984

The American Atheist

remain silent. (Laughter) We can take our Fifth Amendment. (Laughter) Seriously, we need a new amendment to restore the rights
that were taken from us.
Senator Baker has assured us that we will get a vote on our amendment, and with your help, we can win, and that will be a great
victory for our children. (Applause)
During the last decade, we've seen people's commitment to religious liberty expressed by the establishment of thousands of new
religious schools. These schools were built by the sacrifices of parents determined to provide a quality education for their children in
an environment that permits traditional values to flourish.
Now, I believe that some of you met with my advisors to discuss the situation of religious schools in Nebraska. We have all seen
news accounts of the jailing of a minister, the padlocking of a church, and the continuing imprisonment of fathers of students. This
issue of religious liberty has arisen in other states. The question is howto find the balance between assuring quality of education and
preserving freedom for churches and parents who want their schools to reflect their faith.
These cases have mostly proceeded in state c'ourts. A number of state supreme courts have reached decisions that moderated the
effect of state regulations on religious schools. Last week, a panel appointed by the governor of Nebraska concluded that the state's
regulations violate the religious liberties of Christian schools.
I'm a firm believer in the separation of powers, that this nation is a federation of sovereign states. But isn't it time for the Nebraska
courts or legislature to solve this problem by a speedy reconsideration? (Applause) I hope some way can be found to resolve the legal
issues without having people in jail for doing what they think is right. (Applause)
Within our families, neighborhoods, schools, and places of work, let us continue reaching out, renewing our spirit of friendship,
community service and caring for each other - a spirit that flows like a deep and powerful river through the history of our nation.
I made a point last year which some of our critics jumped on, but I believe it has merit. Government bureaucracies spend billions for
problems related to drugs, alcoholism and disease. How much of that money could we save, how much better off might Americans be
if all of us tried a little harder to live by the Ten Commandments and the Golden Rule? (Applause) I've been told that since the beginning
of civilization millions and millions of laws have been written. I've even heard someone suggest itwas as many as several billion. And,
yet, taken all together, all those millions and millions of laws have not improved on the Ten Commandments one bit. (Applause)
Look at projects like CBN's "Operation Blessing," Moody Bible Institute's "Open Line" radio program, Inner City - or the radio
program, "Inner City," I should say, in Chicago - and the work of Dr. E.V. Hill of Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Los Angeles. They show us
that America is more than just government on the one hand and helpless individuals on the other. They show us that lives are saved,
people are reborn and, yes, dreams come true when we heed the voice of the spirit, minister to the needy and glorify God. That is the
stuff of which miracles are made. (Applause)
Our mission stretches far beyond our borders. God's family knows no borders. In your life, you face daily trials, but millions of
believers in other lands face far worse. They are mocked and persecuted for the crime of loving God. To every religious dissident
trapped in that cold, cruel existence, we send our love and support. Our message? You are not alone; you are not forgotten; do not lose
your faith and hope because someday you, too, will be free. (Applause)
If the Lord is our light. our strength and our salvation, whom shall we fear? Of whom shall we be afraid? No matter where we live, we
have a promise that can make all the difference, a promise from Jesus to soothe our sorrows, heal our hearts, and drive away our
fears. He promised there will never be a dark night that does not end. Our weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the
morning. He promised if our hearts are true, his love will be as sure as sunlight. And, by dying for us, Jesus showed how far our love
should be ready to go: All the way.
"For God so loved the World that He gave His only begotten Son, that Whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have
everlasting Life." (Applause)
I'm a little self-conscious because I know very well you all could recite that verse to me. (Laughter)
Helping each other, believing in Him, we need never be afraid. We will be part of something far more powerful, enduring and good
than all the forces here on earth. We will be a part of paradise.
May God keep you always and may you always keep God. (Applause)
END

REAGAN'S STATE OF THE UNION SPEECH, JANUARY 25, 1984

(Excerpt)

President Reagan is perhaps the only president of the United States who has ever, in the history of our nation, introduced religious issues into a "State of the Union" address. Theoretically and practically, this once a year report to the U. S. Congress has
been on the economics of the country. It has been a report, traditionally secular, a non-partisan report of a President presenting
facts to all of the people. It is, allegedly, not a political speech, but rather an assessment of where the nation is.
This year, Ronal Reagan, shocked everyone by calling upon god at least eight times in the speech and by inserting in it all the
"social issues" which he plans to use to run in his bid for re-election. Both the electronic and the hard media no longer report, in
full, what occurs in the nation and it has, therefore, been the policy of American Atheists to obtain the text in full, from the
White House and report it in these pages. What follows is the complete text of his commitment on these "social issues. "
portedly
I will continue to press for tuition tax credits to expand opportunities for families, and to soften the double payment for those paying
public school taxes and private school tuition. . . .
.
And while I'm on the subject - each day, your members observe a 200-year old tradition meant to signify America is one nation
under God.1 must ask: If you can begin your day with a member ofthe clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't
freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?
America was founded by people who believed that God was their rock of safety. He is ours. I recognize we must be cautious in
claiming that God is on our side. But I think it's all right to keep asking if we are on His (sic) side.
During the first three years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the lawto unborn children. Iknow this issue is
very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming
without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof. Indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above
bitterness and reproach. And if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive
solutions to the tragedy of abortion.

Austin, Texas

May, 1984

Page 9

Brian Lynch

THERE IS NO GOD
I

tis clear that.the idea of "god" is a matter of personal taste and

preference. Man has always created gods to justify actions or to
control the behavior of others. The god-idea is nothing more than an
externalized representation of a man's ego. There have been
hundreds of religions, based on as many god-ideas, throughout
human history. It is impossible for all of them to be right, so it is most
reasonable to assume that they're all wrong. The proof of their
wrongness is the fact that they have all been discarded as cultural and
intellectual garbage; no one "believes in" zeus, odin, thor, etc.
A brief examination reveals that gods can do all of the things man
can't (or is forbidden to) do - such as kill people with impunity,
perform self-gratifying acts (called miracles), and exercise authority
without any responsibility. The notion that humanity needs, or must
worship, gods is self-debasing and degrading. If you worship a
concept of god, or a god which some established religion presents, ~- .
you are only worshipping the ideas of another person. So by proxy
you are worshipping the person who invented the god! It makes more
sense, but not much more, to invent your own god to worship: then
you could worship your own ideas rather than someone else's. But
of god. The Japanese realize that it is human effort, directed toward
why worship anything - especially a thing which has no objective
real, material ends, which has resulted in their success - not some
reality and is merely a product of fantasy?
There are as many interpretations of god as there are types of ghost, spirit, or god-in-the-sky.
Religious thinking engenders mysticism and superstition. One of
people. Even within the confines of a given religion, the personal ideas
the consequences of religious thinking is that a person willstop doing
of god differ greatly. Even though the gods in many religions are
the positive things which will accomplish their objectives and
basically the same, members of any sect regard all others as
purposes, and resort to irrelevant or useless actions based on
somewhat heretical or reprehensible. For example, catholics and
mystical belief, such as prayer.
protestants have anathematized each others' teachings for centuries,
Atheists despise prayer because it is an indicator of self-doubt. If
frequently resorting to bloodshed and warfare to resolve their
you pray for something and then wait for a god to "reveal his will" to
arguments, even though they supposedly worship the same god.
you, you don't act in a positive way which willget you what you want.
Usually though, contempt by the religious for each other is expressed
An Atheist, realizing that anything he or she gets is of his or her own
by saying "I'll pray for you." The scorn which religionists have for one
another is released by "praying"! What a simperingly polite way of doing, takes command of situations - positive thinking and actions
add up to results. A prayer always indicates apprehension and a
saying, "1 hate your guts, so I'll have my god punish you"! Of course,
feeling of low self-worth in a person. The feelings of personal
nothing but more hate comes of the praying, because the prayers only
inadequacy and self-doubt are only reinforced when the god a person
reinforce the original animosity, and because there really is no god.
prays to does nothing. Religionists know this and have used the
prayer-trap to reinforce the notion that people are depraved
"... contempt by the religious
is expressed
who need the help of some church to lead a meaningful life.
by saying, 'I'll pray for you.'
What a creatures
Religionists pretend that they can get some god to help a person when
simperingly polite way of saying, 'I hate your the person's own efforts have failed - always in return for some
guts, so I'llhave my god punish you'! Of course, money (as a symbol of faith).
Just as an Atheist doesn't pray to a god for assistance, he or she
nothing but more hate comes of the praying doesn't
pray for forgiveness either. In religions, when one makes a
because the prayers only reinforce the original mistake or does something wrong, he or she compounds bad feelings
animosity and because there really is no god." by adding the dimension of eternal wrongness to it - calling it a sin.
Since all sins are just inventions of religionists, just like gods and
salvation schemes, there really is no such thing. Reasoned analysis
A great number of people are beginning to recognize the harm
demonstrates
that no human actions have universal, eternal
which religious beliefs have do~e to human civilization, and the
consequences or effect. The sin-idea is very useful in religion because
primitive, backward nature of god-ideas. Modern mankind realizes
it is used to make people focus on their negative traits, and this makes
that human beings, and the natural actions of the universe, are
them think less of themselves, or feel bad about themselves. The bad
responsible for everything. So they don't fool themselves into
thinking or feelings directed at oneself leads to a bad self-image. In
thinking that some god can be called on for favors, or accept "fate" as
religion, when one makes an error, he either prays to a god for
a god's willjust because some book says they should. They realize
"forgiveness" or confesses to an intermediary and asks him to pray to
that all so-called sacred books were written by fearful, ignorant
a god for the forgiveness. Atheists know that since praying does no
people whose ideas were based on popular misconceptions,
good, confessing to another human being like yourself does even less
falsehoods and erroneous assumptions. These people are not a
- and furthermore, it's degrading.
minority in the United States: Only 37% of all Americans attend any
church or temple regularly, and of these, 20% attend less than four
AllAmericans should abandon religions and reject god-ideas. They
times per year. In Japan, which has made stunning economic and
have no use or relevance to the needs of modern societies. Both
technological progress in the past 40 years, over 75% of the
god-ideas and religions are cultural and intellectual garbage left over
population are Atheists who have no religion, and who reject all ideas
from primitive, barbarous periods of human history. ~
Page 10

May, 1984

The American Atheist

Fred P. Wortman

CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES

gainst our brains there beats afide of never-subsiding

propaganda, not reasoning, just beating. It has battered all
but the taller minds. Indeed some of the very highest have
been sprayed. Thomas Paine, while demoting Jesus to the station of
mere man, called him a great teacher. Robert Ingersoll said, "Make
This hostility is vividly portrayed in the highest christian authority.
the sermon on the mount your religion and I am with you," though
True, there have been priests and preachers who have championed
that sermon rigidly followed would destroy civilization. This evermaterial philosophy and opposed flagrant abuses, but they did so in
splashing propaganda persuades that christian principles underlie
defiance of the written word, and were genuine heretics. Apologists
our way of life, are the pattern of our laws, and without them our
often hold up these noble heretics as examples of christian merit, but
jurisprudence would be barbarous.
they must be classed on the side of nafural humanism with an import
Free from double meaning, from mysterious implication, from
above the the supernatural. The apologists confess their weakness
riddles hidden in parables, the principles of government have been 'when they abandon authority and point to the higher plane of the
written in clear and simple language such as: All men are equal before
random rebels.
the law; government proceeds from the consent of the governed;
public officials are public servants; life, liberty and the pursuit of
"Constitutional government takes cognihappiness are inalienable rights; the right of any man ceases where it
zance
of man as he is constituted, of his basic
invades the same or similar right of another; the greatest good to the
greatest number takes precedence; and others as simply stated.
urges, basic needs, his emotions, his passions,
Christian tenets have also been written, some very clear, most vague
his endurance. It does not try to legislate him
and misty, but they have been written. It is no great task to place the
into some imaginative angelic status, unmindtwo sets alongside, that he who reads may compare. This no critic has
ful that he must eat and wear and be sheltered."
in fullness done. This no christian dare do.

Constitutional government takes cognizance of man as he is

.constituted, of his basic urges, basic needs, his emotions, his
passions, his endurance. It does not try to legislate him into some
imaginative angelic status, unmindful that he must eat and wear and
be 'sheltered. It aims to permit the widest range in living, aspiring to
provide the greatest latitude for his ambitions, his preferences in this
life on-this earth.
Theology gives to this life a small subordinate station. Earthly
welfare is trivial compared to the eternal bliss waiting in another
world, about which theologians know all. The brief stay here is to be
spent as in a dressing room garbing for eternity. Life must not be
devoted to making the most of itself, but to preparation for death,
must be lived to that end. Happiness in this world destroys the one
chance for it in the next. Misery on this side is the wet nurse of endless
joy on the other side of the marble slab. The unseen, "affectionate"
deity must be cruel to be kind, and the evils of his creation must not be
opposed in their serving the one grand purpose.
This spiritual philosophy utterly destroys the material philosophy
of happiness here and now. There is nothing in common. It makes
patriotism a devilish thing, and obedience to the hierarchy the price of
admission to paradise, an attitude necessarily hostile and contemptuous of natural concern for present human welfare.
Austin, Texas

The sermon is quoted more than the decalogue, yet willnot half so
well survive the acid test of investigation. Much of it is in misty
platitudes (the church calls them "Beatitudes," whatever that may
mean). "Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth." Not
paradise but earth, which must mean earthly things, earthly possessions, earthly advantages. If in the 2,000 years since that was
promised the meek have inherited any but hobnails, what is it? Can
that be written down as a principle of administration, or even morals?
"Blessed are they that mourn .... " If the slaughter of loved ones
bringing grief until hearts are weak and sick is a blessing, then this
world has recently been blessed (by World War II)as never in history.
Can such an expression be written into a principle? Today the best
minds, atheistic and other, are striving to do away with all war and
mourning.
The other platitudes have a heavenly sequel and apply very slightly
to earthly life. One more is worthy of notice: "Blessed are the
peacemakers." What a hollow ring to come from one saying that he
came not to send peace but a sword, to set families against
themselves.
"Agree with thine adversary quickly" lest prison and fine result is
both hypocrisy and cowardice in a single breath. No word as to who
may be the adversary, and who the one in agreement. It has to mean
that the minority, the weaker, the few, must yield and pretend. Who
will write that into a principle, when as a moral doctrine it is to be
despised? Neither the church nor any government recognizes it. The
church glories in its martyrs who did not fear prison, and all lovers of
freedom honor their heroes who resisted tyranny to the death. That
alone almost obligates the god himself to agree with his adversary, the
devil, who wins mere spoils, is more powerful, more prevailing, and
conducts the prison.
That a right eye can offend and should be plucked out, or that a
right hand should be cut off that the whole body be not cast into hell
sounds like gibber from a padded cell. That would argue strongly for
the guillotine, which casts off both eyes and ears and the slanderous

May, 1984

Page 11

tongue. Can that be written into a moral tenet supporting our way of
life?
To take no thought of tomorrow, of food, drink, or covering,
because the lily fares well, neither toiling nor spinning, is a tramp's
philosophy. Sixty days of such observance by a converted world
would see civilization crash. We are learning that it requires diligent,
almost desperate, thought extending to many long tomorrows to
escape death from pollution or lack of as simple a thing as drinking
Water. Let the propagandist try writing that into a principle.
Now we come to one commandment that can be, and has been,
written into law and enforced by the Torquemadas until rivers of
blood have run or been dried in flames. "They that would not that I
should rule over them, bring them before me and slay them." What
matters it that this same god, before he took on flesh, said "Thou shalt
not kill?" Who reads H.C. Lea gets a grasp of the unbelievable horror
growing out of this command. Civilization has left that behind. Who
would rewrite that into our statute books today?
Repeatedly this demigod of all shows racial antipathy. With scorn,
"for these things the gentiles seek." "Go not in the way of the
gentiles." He calls them "swine" and "dogs," and would not cast his
pearls before them. He spoke to them in parables, "lest they
understand and become converted," and crash heaven's gate where
he did not want them. He "came only to the lost sheep of Israel."
"Salvation is only for the jew," Antisemitism is a religious antipathy
directed at a small race, but this semitism of the god-on-earth was a
hostility involving all eternity and all the races of the earth except the
one small one. Who willdare venture that racial antipathy written into
our law would be a prop to our civilization?
If there were a little band of thirteen, earning nothing, wandering,
earning nothing, wandering, haranguing, it would naturally preach
charity, ask charity, threaten the uncharitable, be without any
concern of a solution of the world's dire problem of poverty. To sell all
and give to the poor would soon bring an end to giving.Very naturally,
too, would such a group pray "Forgive our debts as we forgive our
debtors," with probably many debts to be cancelled, but no debtors
to be forgiven. "The poor ye shall have with you always," was as far as
those "teachers" could think. They left it to the Atheists of the Orient
to grapple with poverty and plan to abolish it in a few short years.
Charity does not solve. It glosses over, it extends and thereby
increases the evil. It delays, prevents reform; it cures nothing.
The church with ready texts has opposed every advance and
reform that intelligence has established in the teeth of religious
hostility, scientific education, abolition of slavery, the rights of
women. With a bland and shameless effrontery, orthodox religion has
barged on to the soil of its own defeat trumpeting that it is the author
of the reforms. For a century it has dinned that it originated the idea of
the equality of man, and his brotherhood. Nothing is more distant
from the truth. It had seventeen centuries to develop and establish
equality before our infidel and heretical fathers wrote it in the
Declaration of Independence. With strong hands it built its structure
of divine right of kings, of submission to despotism, feudalism and
serfdom, chattel ownership and slavery. It was not until fifty years
after the Declaration that Sinai ceased to smoke and thunder against
the idea of equality as "novel, subversive, and dangerous."
Now in defeat the apologists want memory dimmed, have abandoned all texts hostile to freedom, yet in their book of contradictions
they cannot point to a single text asserting civic equality. Instead they
flood all avenues with the argument that the god sacrificing himself to
himself to appease his own wrath thereby made all men equal. How?
In the first place it provided a hitherto unknown hell for all those
minds who do not sanction the notion of a cleansing sacrifice, without
considering whether those minds be honest in their doubt. Sincerely
questioning the dogma becomes an eternal crime. It makes thought,
not deeds, damnation fodder. It truly inspired the first Un-American
Committee to establish the guilt of thought.
Ifthere is any idea of equality in the argument, it applies only to the
ranks of harpists in the next world, not to any citizen of this one.
Salvation was offered to prince and pauper, to king and subject, to
lord and serf, to master and slave without suggestion that it would
Page 12

May, 1984

make them equals before their state tribunals. All this is a cunning
priestly fiction, disputed by holy writ, as per; "Servants, be obedient
to your masters," approving mastery and servitude. It allows the
vineyard owner to pay a penny for a day or an hour of labor. It harps
"kings of kings and lord of lords" as a blessed ideal. There is rendering
unto Caesar. There is offering to favorites of earth a favorite place in
heaven. Condemning women to submission, humility, and subjection, forbidding her to learn except from her owner, or to teach, to
be in authority, to wear braided hair or jewelry or broidered garment,
denouncing her as beneath the man as man is beneath christ,
degrades to the level of chattel beasts the most important half of the
human race. Are these passages torn from the bibles used at Smith
and Vassar Colleges? If not, why not? The major division of
christianity, catholicism, is a perfect despotism with ranks of
authority graded down to the masses, which have no rights but to
serve and obey. Equality of man, what a ghastly joke!

"With all its pretense of being religious, no

court in the civilized world will recognize blood
atonement, and permit a substitute to accept
the penalty .... Will the most fanatical apologist rise to urge this be written into the law of
today?"
Driven to the curb, asked to mention a single christian principle fit
to be rated a legal support of civilization, the apologists take refuge in
"Love thy neighbor," with the distorted definition of neighbor, or
"Love thine enemy," studiously overlooking "Hate thy family." Well
he knows this cannot be written into law. Law can neither compel nor
inspire love. It is an emotion residing in the division of sensibility,
outside the faculties of reason and will. It answers to stimuli, not to
commandment or force. Neither can commandment make one hate
mother or wife. Had the priestly writers ascribed to the Galilean
(Jesus) "Respect the rights of your neighbor, even of your enemy,"
they would have written a gem. The law can and does forbid trespass
against neighbors we dislike.
The last defense of an apologist is to quote his golden rule, "Do
unto others ... " W.J. Bryan was its great champion (the religious
fanatic in the play, Inherit the Wind). He clearly showed it is a positive
rule, takes the offensive, in contrast to the negative rule of Confucius
and Hillel which says; "Do not unto another that which is hateful to
thyself," meaning "Withhold thy hands," an injunction which a moron
can understand. Togo and do to another requires great wisdom on
the part of the doer, or wise advice attached to the rule. No advice
accompanies the gospel version. It is left to the doer to estimate the
good. Every aggressive and conquering nation has pretended it did to
others for their good, even we pleading "the white man's burden."
Had the christian world been saturated with the idea of withholding
unwanted hands from overt acts, what a different and better world we
would have. Every cruelty of history has come from hands laid on, not
from hands withheld.
In the Middle Ages zealous christians reasoned that if their souls
were in danger of eternal hell, they would want their friends to save
them, though it required the thumbscrew, the rack, the wheel, and
the torture chamber. Thus they did to others, to the erring ones, by
the million. At its ultimate the golden rule is a vicious thing, and the
man does not live who willdare to write it into law compelling men to
go and do as they think best.
It is depressing to see secular writers remarking that Secularism
more faithfully observes the teaching of Jesus than do the churches,
which makes Secularism a christian sect claiming superiority. Every
christian sect makes that claim. Let the next secular writer, so
tempted, first try to lay down in clear concise language any christian
principle he would approve. He will be cured. Every great principle
can be stated in simple words.
If christianity can be said to have fixed principles, they are but
hereditary, that son and grandson are as guilty as the father. Only
The American Atheist

thus could they invent a fallof man. Attainder is positively forbidden in

our Constitution, and denounced by the whole civilized world. It only
exists in the craw of nazism. Yet it is the essence of christianity, which
by it extends conviction to the last child born, making it a co-culprit
with Adam, whose felony was reaching into the tree of wisdom.
Without attainder, orthodox religion is an insolvent void, yet no man
will attempt to underwrite it as a principle of civilization or jurisprudence.
The other fixed fundamental is vicarious atonement. Without it
salvation would fade. Without it christianity would die. It Cleanses
with the blood of an innocent victim, wipes away guilt through the
suffering of a blameless one on the easy condition that the
condemned simply believe it was so intended in the scheme. It makes
strong appeal to the criminal element. It establishes a laundry, whose

solvent is blood, in which the reddest smocks and the blackest robes
can be "made whiter than snow."
With all its pretense of being religious, no court in the civilized
world will recognize blood atonement, and permit a substitute to
accept the penalty. No court will allow a mother to step on the trap
door for her son, though he believe, would actually know, she would
do it for the love of him. The stupidest court knows this would not
rectify a crime, but simply add another victim. Will the most fanatical
apologist rise to urge this be written into the law of today?
These are not trivia, not fancied faults. They are the foundation, the
embodiment in every christian church from the approach to the tip of
its uttermost spire, these principles: attainder of blood, by which
heredity attaches guilt to innocence; and vicarious atonement, which
washes guilt away in the blood of innocence. ~

Wayne McClintic

CHILDREN: SEX EDUCATION VS. RELIGION

any people reach maturity without having received a proper
sexual education. Their sexual attitudes, based on inadequate sexual information, are deeply,entrenched, and
they themselves often pass on erroneous sexual beliefs to their own
children.

Sex education, at its simplest, is the provision of sexual information. Primarily, its function is to give children knowledge about their
developing sexuality. The object of sex education is not merely a
matter of teaching about sexual intercourse and birth control. Ideally,
it involves more than an understanding of reproduction, contraception and the avoidance of disease. An appreciation of the
emotional aspects, of the psychology of the opposite sex, of love and
affection, is also necessary for the greatest enjoyment of sex and the
most secure adult relationships. Many people, however, think of sex
education as being primarily concerned with the techniques of sexual
intercourse, divorced from morals or emotions, and condemn it out
of hand.
The child, for example, from a home or a community where sex is
Austin, Texas

regarded as unmentionable will grow up with this attitude and will

probably feel guilty about its perfectly natural sexual urges.
Conversely, another child reared in free and easy surroundings
where sex is regarded as just one aspect of a loving relationship willbe
better adjusted sexually and more likely to form satisfactory sexual
relationships as an adult.
Learning about sex should be home-centered. Unfortunately,
however, many parents are simply too shy or religious to discuss sex
with their children, especially if the children are very young. Even
when the children are in their early teens their parents may be too
embarrassed to talk frankly about sex to them - if a child's parents
have not spoken to him by the age of 12 or 13 they are unlikely,
according to one survey, ever to do so.
Parents may feel that sex is "dirty" because of repressive religious
beliefs and doctrines. Religion is the one big (and probably only)
suppressive educational element in society today retarding proper
sexual education as it should be taught today in home and school.
Religious teachings have caused more sexual problems today (as they
have in the past) between children and peers, resulting in sexual
inhibitions and mental blocks or hang-ups in young adults.
In most societies the meaning of sex, as the meaning of anything
else, is revealed by religion. At least this has always been the case in
societies of the past, and even in modern, secular societies the sexual
standards often remain tied to older religious doctrines.

May, 1984

Page 13

The ancient Israelites saw the nature of sex in reproduction and

condemned any sexual behavior that did not promote this goal. The
early christians adopted this narrow view and even restricted it
further by treating sex as a necessary evil and extolling the virtues of
sexual abstinence. Since they expected the second coming of christ
and the end of the world in their lifetimes, they did not think very
much of sexual pleasure. Instead, they were influenced by various
sex-negative philosophies of their time and incorporated them into
their own religion. When christ failed to return, and the world went on
as before, they became a little more tolerant, but their basic belief did
not change: Sexual activity was acceptable only when it could lead to
pregnancy within marriage, and even then it was something of an
embarrassment. People avoided discussing their sexual fantasies
openly, and did this not prove that they felt uneasy about them?
Parents hid the intimate side of their marriage from their children, and
did this not prove that there was something wrong with sexual
intercourse?

"Religion is the one big (and probably only)

suppressive educational element in society
today retarding proper sexual education as it
should be taught today in home and school."
If parents or children feel uncomfortable or even guilty about their
own sexuality, they are bound to convey these negative feelings to
everybody around them and, as a result, the child may become
confused and apprehensive. This would be very unfortunate.
Children cannot develop properly if they are not encouraged to
experiment, to seek new experiences and to exercise all their
faculties. With such encouragement and proper guidance, however,
their "sex play" will eventually turn into purposeful, responsible
behavior.
Parents who see their boys and girls masturbate make a serious
mistake ifthey become alarmed about it and force them to stop under
threat of punishment; this willonly create needless feelings of guilt in
the children as they continue to practice in secret. The sexual
response is a normal function of the human body at any age and, as
such, cannot possibly do any physical harm. Neither can it stunt a
child's growth. On the contrary, for many children masturbation is
simply part of growing up, and there is no medical reason why they
should not enjoy it.
Most males and females in Europe and America remain sexually
frustrated until they are able to marry - i.e., in most cases until they
are well over 20 years old. Even worse: They are systematically
alienated from their own bodies and indoctrinated with rigid
puritanical attitudes which impede their emotional growth. As a
result, many of them become insensitive, intolerant, and conformist
in sexual matters.
Their erotic potential remains underdeveloped and unrefined. This
negative conditioning already begins in infancy when mothers deny
their babies the most intimate communication by raising them on the
bottle, or when they suppress all lustful sensations while breastfeeding them. The deprivation continues when they keep them
wrapped up in diapers, clothes and blankets, instead of allowing them
to enjoy complete skin contact and occasional nudity. Finally, the
damage is compounded by inflexible daily routines, harsh toilet
training, withholding of sexual information, punishment of masturbation and prevention of explanatory sex play with other children.
The lack of sexual knowledge may cause anxiety and confusion.
Yet even where adequate knowledge is provided, one basic
problem remains: The greatly increased sexual capacity of adolescents cannot be exercised. Modern teenagers may well be told
some of the "facts of life," but at the same time they are also informed
that for them regular sexual intercourse is out of the question.
Therefore, they find themselves restricted to masturbation and
various forms of "petting," but even these behaviors are .not
considered desirable and may actually be denounced as sinful,
unhealthy or immature by religious standards.
Page 14

May, 1984

All of this has very serious consequences for the emotional and
moral climate in our society. After all, about 40% of the population are
sexually mature, but unmarried. Since our official morality makes no
allowance for their sexual needs, it creates in our midst a great deal of
resentment, hostility and, indeed, violence. Many young people
become openly rebellious or "drop out" of the established system.
Those who adapt to it are often emotionally crippled for life. They
cannot be happy before they are married and are disappointed
thereafter.
The reason for this is plain: They are erotically incompetent. Our
children and adolescents simply never learn how to be lovers, how to
be tender and affectionate, how to give and receive physical pleasure,
how to build and maintain mutually rewarding sexual relationships.
Instead, they are raised on a steady diet of sexual shame and guilt
until some magic wedding ceremony supposedly somehow transforms them into passionate, sensuous and satisfied husbands and
wives. However, in real life such miracles rarely happen. Our sexual
rules and religious doctrines or standards for the young are therefore
not only absurd, but inhumane and destructive!
Let me bring to point now the view of Brian Gilmartin in Psychology
Today magazine.
"Children of all ages need more, not less, sex education.
However, they need to receive it from empirically trained
scholars and researchers, not from reactionaries appointed by
local boards who use the classroom to polemicize against
premarital sex. Young people have a right to make up their own
minds about premarital sex. We know that more than 80% of
them eventually decide in favor of having it - all the more
reason for providing them with the kind of information that will
truly protect them.
"We know that the single most important cause of unplanned pregnancy is lack of genuine acceptance of premarital
coitus as 'morally right.' Discussing, and taking contraceptive
precautions beforehand, renders premarital sex 'd~liberate
and premeditated.' Simply put, conservative clergymen,
parents, and teachers fuel the flames of the unwanted
pregnancy problem by making teenagers feel guilty about
premarital sexuality. If we enabled young people to feel serene
about monogamous, loving, contraceptively protected premarital coitus, they would be able to talk matters over with their
lovers before commencing erotic behavior. Discussing matters
beforehand is a precondition for taking responsible contraceptive precautions. As things are now, most teenagers have
been programmed by their parents to want to punish
themselves with a pregnancy because they enjoy sex."
In recent years various European and American writers have
demanded a more positive sexual education and, indeed, a new "Bill
of Rights" for children that would include sexual rights.
.
These proposals differ in details, but generally agree on these basic
points: "Children should have the same right to sexual information
and sexual activity as adults, and they should not be forced into
stereotypical sex roles: This means not only that children would have
to be told about contraception, abortion and venereal disease, but
also that they would have to be given access to all "adult" books,
magazines, films and stage shows, including those that are called
"pornographic. "

But again, religion is the overwhelming force in society today, and

until society and common sense changes that age-old religious
indoctrination of people's minds, natural and normal sex will be
regarded by most as sinful. 00
The American Atheist

..,
I

Frank Snider

THE GREAT IRISH STING

.The

Sting was a fine movie. A well-executed con game is always

entertaining - provided one is not among those being duped.
However, the most fascinating con games are not those of
individual hustlers but the ones that are perpetrated by the great con
artists - church and state.
A good example of such an international con game is the swindle of
the Irish by the catholic church. It is a near perfect Sting in that most
of the dupes still do not know they were dupes and fondly imagine the
catholic church is, and always has been, their best friend. It is an
interesting story in itself but in addition it has contemporary relevance
in that something similar is now starting in Latin America. By
understanding Irish history we willbe better able to appreciate what is
going to happen in Latin America.
The conventional interpretation of Irish history has the Irish being
fervently loyal to the catholic church because the catholic church,
during the bitter centuries of English colonial rule, was fervently loyal
to the Irish. It is a touching story that is marred by the fact that it bears
little resemblance to reality. That truth is that it was the catholic
church that first delivered the Irish into the grasping hands of the
English, and it was the catholic church that helped to keep them
there.

In a brief article one cannot detail the lrish-Enqlish struggle. But the
following random highlights willindicate clearly enough the sorry role
of the church in that struggle.
It began with Adrian IV's papal bull of 1169. In that infamous
document he authorized an English invasion of Ireland. This was
because he wanted to bring the Irish church under the direct control
of the papacy. For a long time the papacy had been upset because the
Irish insisted upon monastic organization instead of the hierarchical
organization (bishop to cardinal to pope) that was favored by the
vatican. In other words. the Irish church was decentralized but the
papacy believed then, as it believes now, in what the nazis called the
"Juehrerprinzip" (leadership principle).
Because Adrian IV chanced to be an Englishman many have
assumed that this bull was more a result of his chauvinism than a
Austin, Texas

papal policy per se. This is not the case. His successor, Alexander II,
was no Englishman and he was even more determined to impose
English rule over Ireland. The Irish had put up effective resistance to
the English invasion that had followed Adrian's bull, but Alexander II
cut the heart out of their fight by proclaiming in 1177 that Henry II of
England had a godgiven (i.e. pope-given) right to Ireland and all
Irishmen must surrender to him under threat of excommunication.
With the aid of that remarkable pronouncement England gained a
control of Ireland that it has not entirely relinquished yet.

"The truth is that it was the catholic church

that first delivered the Irish into the grasping
hands of the English, and it was the catholic
church that helped to keep them there."
In 1319 the Irish, aided by a force of Scotsmen under the command
of Edward Bruce (brother of the famous Robert), mounted a
seemingly successful revolt against their English overlords. They had
almost driven them from Ireland when the English appealed to the
pope. And the pope obliged by again issuing an edict of excommunication against any Irishman who took up arms against
England.
In 1690 came another Irish war. This one culminated in the Battle of
the Boyne. This turned out to be a watershed moment in Irish history
for the defeatthe Irish suffered at the Boyne set back the hopes of the
catholic Ireland for centuries. And one of the reasons for this defeat
was the machinations of the popes. This time it was not the Irish the
papacy was out to undermine as much as it was the French; however,
as the French were the main allies of the Irish it came to the same
thing. Ironically, in the light of the great Irish devotion to the church,
pope Alexander VIII ordered special masses of thanksgiving to be
said when he heard of the defeat of the Irish catholics.
Nothing changed in the nineteenth century. Daniel O'Connell is
famed as the liberator of the Irish catholics for he is the man who
wrested emancipation for the catholics from the reluctant English.
Under the circumstances one would think the clergy would have been
vigorous supporters of O'Connell. Such was not the case. Pope'
Gregory XVI instructed the clergy to refrain from attending
O'Connell meetings. And why did he do such an extraordinary thing?
By now one should be able to guess the answer. The English
government had asked him to do so.
The situation became more tragic with the Irish famine of the 1840s.
During those terrible years more than a million Irish men, women and
children died - in spite of the fact that there was enough food
available to have prevented a disaster of this magnitude if the ruling
classes had been willingto take effective action. However, the ruling
classes were not concerned enough to act, and so efforts were made
to force them to do something.
These efforts came to nothing for, as the great Irish rebel, James
Connolly, was later to write:
"when the starving peasantry was called upon to refuse to pay
rent to the landlords, and to rise in revolt against the system
which was murdering them, the clergy commanded them to
pay their rents, instructed them that they should lose their
immortal souls if they should fail to do so, and threw all the
weight of their position against the revolutionary movement for
the freedom of Ireland."
So the catholic church bears a large responsibility for what turned out
to be a form of genocide against the Irish people.
May, 1984

Page 15

It was also the church that led the way in the destruction of Charles
Parnell. One may grant that once his adulterous relationship with
Kitty O'Shea became public knowledge, the clergy had no choice but
to criticize him. In Victorian Ireland one could not expect that sexual
"immorality" could be ignored. But they did not have to keep after
him, and after him, and after him until not only Parnell but his entire
movement was destroyed.
Nor was the attitude of the church any different toward Sinn Fein.
This was the movement that finally achieved independence for most
of Ireland. Meanwhile, it was blasted by the clergy in terms such as
"hell was not hot enough nor eternity long enough to punish such
miscreants."
But the best demonstration of the subversive role played by the
Irish clergy is found in the remarkable ruling of a nineteenth century
Irish archbishop. He instructed the clergy that should an individual
confess to them that he was taking part (or had taken part) in a plot
against the English, the priest was duty bound to report that fact to
the English. But in accordance with the seal of the confessional
dogma, the priest was not obligated to give the name of the individual
to the English.
However there was a Catch-22. While the priest did not have to tell
the authorities the name of the individual, the individual himself had to
give his name to the authorities in order to get absolution from the
priest. In other words an Irish catholic rebel had the choice of
delivering his soul into the hands of the devil - or his body into the
hands of the police.
And the pattern continues up to the present. On the forty-first day
of the hunger strike that would eventually lead to his death the voters
of Fermangh and South Tyrone elected Bobby Sands as their MP.
They did this in spite of a vitriolic campaign waged against the dying
and heroic Sands by British politicians and, of course, the Irish clergy.
Many are mystified by all of this. Why, they ask, would the catholic
church treat its most devoted followers in so shameless a manner.
There are two reasons, and one of them is a result of the fact that the
Irish have been so loyal.
When a political group has a following that is hopelessly loyal, they
do not have to devote much time to satisfying demands that might be
troublesome to satisfy. Instead of this, occasional stroking will do
nicely. For example, the Democrats know they have the Black vote in
America safely tucked away. For a variety of reasons that need not be
detailed here, they know the Blacks are not going to vote Republican,

//.. / 'I
','//'{

Libertarian, Socialist, or any other third party. Therefore they know

they can keep the Blacks in line by throwing them a crumb now and
then.
So it was with the Irish. The church knew it did not have to worry
about them, and so it could turn its concerns to other matters.
Sometimes these other matters were continental politics but more
often it was England that was the object of the church's affections.
The papacy never gave up its dream that someday England might be
brought back to the church, and even those who felt that was too
much to hope agreed that it was important to have good relationships
with England. This factor became the more important as England
became the dominant power in the world.
The second reason is that the catholic church, like all established
religions, is never in favor of revolution. No matter how savagely a
people are oppressed nor how badly a revolution is needed, the
church has always dragged its collective feet - and heart and head. It
knows that social and economic justice willbring along freedom, and
freedom willbring along enlightenment, and enlightenment in its turn
willbring a spotlight to bear upon the mindlessness and superstition
that is the church.
But why didn't the Irish catch on? If the case is as clear as I have
Page 16

May, 1984

The American Atheist

made it out to be then surely the Irish should have grasped what was
happening. They should have known that the church was doing more
to them than it was doing for them.
First of all one must keep in mind that there were individual priests
and nuns who did side with the common man, who did share in the
struggle, who did die for Ireland. Their heroics, and stories about their
heroics, have become a permanent part of Irish folklore, and when
they have suited its needs, the church has made maximum PR
advantage of them. The result is that at the micro level the church has
benefitted from the decent behavior of some priests and nuns and
that in turn has enabled it at the macro level to pursue other and
contrary interests without great harm to its image.

"... at the micro level the church has benefitted

from the decent behavior of some priests and
nuns, and that in turn has enabled it at the
macro level to pursue other and contrary
interests without great harm to its image."
The second reason is that the Irish were the victims of the best
weapon of all tyrannies - the control of propaganda. The catholic
church has always been the mother-lode of brainwashing techniques.
There is nothing that totalitarians of either the left or the right can

,.

about the suffering and oppression in the area, and they point with
pride to the small number of priests and nuns who have identified with
the poor and downtrodden. At the same time most of the hierarchy
and much of the lower clergy continues to be very comfortable with
the fascistic dregs who run these sorry hell-holes. Meanwhile, the
vatican views America in much the same way it once viewed England
- the major imperial power of the world and therefore its most
desirable ally.
It willbe years before we know anything of what is going on behind
the scenes, but by observing and listening carefully we can often see
the church revealing its true attitude. The recent visit of pope John
Paul II to Central America offered such a chance.
One would think that at this time the most "christian" nation in
Central America is Nicaragua. That is the nation that is trying the
hardest to promote what the christians claim are their virtues social justice, brotherhood, love of mankind, etc., etc. In contrast, the
least christian nation would be EI Salvador or Guatemala ..One can
take his or her choice, though there is little to choose between them.
However, on his visit the country of which the pope was most
critical was Nicaragua. It was Nicaragua for which he had the
harshest words and the least rapport. But amidst the slaughter that is
EI Salvador he was very "even-handed" in his criticisms. There was
much of both-sides-must-equally-share-the-blame
and both-sidesmust-learn-to-love-one-another. It was like a man visiting Auschwitz
and telling both nazis and jews to cease their violence against each
other.
It is true that he was also critical of the Guatemalan government,
but this seemed to be tied to the fact that Guatemala had a protestant
evangelical dictator and, under his aegis, evangelical hustlers were
leading people away from what the pope considers the "true" faith.
The catholic church has had a monopoly in Central America for
centuries, and like any multinational business they are not about to
give up a profitable monopoly without a fight. Since that time the
protestant butcher has been replaced by a catholic one and no doubt
the pope would give Guatemala a better report card today.
But the Sandinistas continue to be in a difficult position. If they do

not exercise some control over the church, they are likely to have in their own ruling circles - some catholics who are working with
Somoza's legions and/or the CIA. But ifthey make any serious effort
to control the church, they willalienate the more superstitious (or as
the euphemism has it, more devout) portion of the masses.
Even worse, they would give the Reagan administration the excuse
it has been seeking. Imagine the joy in Washington if they could put
together a cover story that justified an invasion of Nicaragua on the
grounds that it was necessary in order to save the lives of priests and
nuns and prevent an assault on the churches. Talk about one's
wildest dreams coming true. It is bad enough that propaganda about
teach them, and there is still much the political totalitarians could
so-called persecution of the church in Nicaragua has already started
learn from the catholic church. Not all of the political totalitarians are
to be spread by Nicaraguan bishops and the State Department
as honest as Adolph Hitler who admitted that the techniques he used
propaganda machine.
to train his SS men were copied from the jesuits.
Nicaragua is a testing ground. The church is refining techniques
Even today in an Ireland that is relatively free there is still much
that willbe used throughout Latin America. The aim willbe to give the
censorship. The church no longer has complete control and there is
appearance of being in favor of social and economic justice while
criticism of the church on specific issues, but a revisionist approach to . doing what they can, behind the scenes, to sabotage change. it willbe
the church's role in Irish history would face the same problem that
the Irish Sting refurbished for new players in a new cultural setting.
revisionist history faces everywhere. Certain "facts" which are not
The power of the catholic church, in particular, and christianity, in
facts are so well drummed into the heads of the average man that to
general, is not what it was in the Middle Ages, but neither is it as weak
drum them out is as agonizing as it is largely futile. Furthermore, we
as some secularists imagine. What needs to be studied and to be
should not be too critical of the Irish when we have an anal ago us
publicized more is the way the churches have adapted to modern
situation on our own doorstep and few have shown much insight into
times and have learned to play at being progressive while remaining
it.
the same old believers in the inquisition they always were and always
In Central America the catholic church is playing much the same
will be. ~
role it has played in Ireland. Publicly the church wrings its hands
Austin, Texas

May, 1984

Page 17

Henry Boessl

THE STORY BEHIND THE BULL

any centuries ago, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, there

lived a sacred bull known as the minotaur.
The minotaur's palace was a huge cave deep inside a mountain.
The people of Crete worshipped their sacred bull with great
reverence because it was said that terrible disasters would befall the
land if the bull ever got angry.
Therefore the good Cretans brought food, wine and incense into
the cave at frequent intervals to keep the sacred bull in good spirits.
There was always more food and wine than the bull wanted and the
worshippers were permitted to help the bull celebrate, as it was
considered bad form to take back any of the sacrifices. The occasions
of worship soon became so popular that the local government had to
rule that only certain people could participate in these rites of the
sacred bull, as they called the sacrifices.
Naturally, the privileged ones were the politicians and other
influential people of Crete.
After a while, however, the initial religious zeal tapered off. It is
speculated that this had to do with the fact that the bull never left his
palace. Never - for any purpose whatsoever - did the minotaur as
much as step outside the cave.
So, as time went by, the floors pace available to step and sit on
became less and less. Attendance to the rites dropped off, and one
day the bull announced that ifthe Cretans no longer worshipped him
with their original fervor he would get real angry.
Now the government of Crete had to force the politicians to attend
the sacred rites in order to appease the bull. The sacrifices continued
but with much less enthusiasm. Some records indicate that the
sacrifices changed in those times: There was less and less food and
more and stronger incense.
Finding the way from the cave entrance to the throne became
difficultand at one time the palace was known as the Labyrinth. Every
cloud has its silver lining, and the Cretan priests and politicians made
the best of the situation.
While they no longer relished the trips into the Labyrinth, they
applied what they learned there and did a brisk business on the side as
teachers of the dance. The dance tutors of Crete were held in high
esteem at royal courts throughout the world for the elegance with
which they performed the most intricate steps.
Things got worse with time. The worshippers emerged from the
cave in a state of altered consciousness and required considerable
time to function again in their normal manner.
To facilitate this transition from the awe-struck elation to reality
under proper guidance the Cretans erected a big tent just outside the
cave where those returning from the sacred rites could gather for
what they called revival meetings. Enterprising Cretans made
fortunes in this revival tent selling perfume and smelling salts.
Conditions deteriorated until one day at a meeting of the
Concerned Citizens of the B.S. (Bull Services) a foreigner visiting
Crete shouted: "You're going to have to clean out that cave!"
This announcement struck like a bomb. At first the Citizens
reacted with dead silence. Then someone shouted: "Heretic!" Cries
were heard like: "Throw him to the bull!" and "Sell him to the
Aegyptians!" But there were also shouts of: "He's right." and "Finally
someone noticed!"
It was a while before the meeting came to order. When it did,
reason prevailed and the problem was at last defined. The solution
seemed easy at first; but what would the sacred bull say if they went
into the cave with carts and shovels and started cleaning out? Would
this not imply that the bull had been living in - well, circumstances
not really worthy of a sacred bull?
Would he not get angry and stomp around and bring disaster and
Page 18

May, 1984

suffering to the entire island?

The foreigner offered his suggestion and when the Cretans heard it
they agreed that this was the best they could come up with. A
delegation was nominated with the foreigner as spokesman and they
decided to bring the matter before the bull the very next morning.
The following day the population of the entire island watched as the
delegation strode toward the cave.
At the entrance they hesitated, but then they took heart and
followed their spokesman inside.
Carefully they picked their way to the throne.
"What do you want?" snorted the sacred bull, not exactly pleased
at being disturbed at an hour where no sacrifices were scheduled and
by a group of people who were not carrying any sacrifices.
"Oh sacred bull," said the spokesman while he, like the others,
carefully prostrated himself. "Mighty minotaur, we come with a
request that will show how much your people love you."
"Go on, but make it short," grunted the bull.
The spokesman continued: "The people want to have something
from you that they can put on their altars or carry with them,
something that willremind them always of their allegiance to you and
of the protection which you grant them. Something warm and
personal, and since your palace has become a little cramped of late
anyway, we hoped you might allow us to take what is laying on the
ground and distribute it amongst your followers. To you, the matter if
of little importance, but for those who believe in you it willbe a token
of power and fertility; its magic willanswer their prayers and cure their
ills."
"Well ... " said the bull, and the politicians and priests noted with
relief that the sacred bull was not offended; he seemed even a little
flattered.
"Well, hmm, - I don't see anything wrong with that idea; and if it
makes my followers happy as you say - go ahead, gather all you can
find and spread it amongst the people."
The members of the delegation sprang to their feet, shouting:
"Glory to the bull." and 'The bull is great." and wended their way
back to the entrance.
Before leaving the cave the spokesman turned around and,
encouraged by the friendly mood of the sacred bull, asked ifhe might
ask one other favor.
The bull wrinkled his brow: "What more do you want?"
"Please, great one, give us a name for that which will be your
greatest gift of all. Give us a new word, a word that says it all ... "
"Yes," said the bull, "Yes, I willgive you a new word, and this word
shall be used for my blessings forever and ever. The word is
RHETORIC! Yes, rhetoric. And now go and spread rhetoric in my
name and to my glory throughout the world!"
"Thank you, oh sacred bull, thank you." shouted the spokesman,
and he turned and scrambled to the revival tent to join the others.
This ends my fable.
The rest is history.
The politicians of Crete spread rhetoric with such enthusiasm that
the practice caught on and became a tradition everywhere. Even
today politicians - and many others - are carrying out the
command of the minotaur, spreading rhetoric far and wide. and miracle of miracles - there never seems to be a shortage. ~
The American Atheist

Madalyn Murray Q'Hair

MAY DAY AND THE CHRISTIANIZATION

OF SPRING
E

Flora was the goddess of "all

that flourishes." She had her
own priest -- one of the
twelve flamens said to have
been instituted by Numa. Her
festivals were called Floralia.
Courtesans took part in them,
whence Flora became a
popular name with these
ladies. Pompey the great was a
favourite of one so called.

Austin, Texas

verything that is wonderful, happy, good, beautiful, exciting and

invigorating has always been under attack by religion. Its
philosophy of death, despair, hopelessness, personal inadequacy,
dependency and fear has stalked the corridors of time to be on the
attack against the wholesome, the human. The terrible dichotomy of
life which religion presents, the division of that which is normal and
healthy, decent and humane, earthy and animal, into an "evil" side of
humankind and of that which is abnormal and unhealthy, dismaying
and sado-masochistic, ephemeral and unreal, into the "good" side of
humankind has brought misery and despair into the lives of every
person on earth, great and small, young and old, for thousands of
years. And, most often women have been the major victims.
Nothing has driven this home more forcefully to this author than
May Day.
The editor of this magazine, attempting to have historical, but
timely, based articles in this journal asked our staff artist to create a
centerfold picture for the May issue which would be appropriate to
the May Day festivities. She then assigned to me the chore of
researching and writing an article on May Day.
The Charles E. Stevens American Atheist Library and Archives,
Inc. is the single largest Atheist library in the world. The founder of
American Atheists and her family have combed that world to find
additions to it. They have labored assiduously for over twenty years
to collect, repair, restore, preserve and protect what has come to be
an enormous collection. There are perhaps 30,000 books, 600,000
leaflets, pamphlets, booklets, journals, magazines, and original
manuscripts not yet in print. The problem of indexing them all is
staggering. The total accumulation is valued at about $3 million, some
of the bound collections of old journals costing as much as $3,000.
(The lot of Ingersoll memorabilia cost $12,000, with his private letters,
personal pictures of his family, cancelled checks, and lecture posters.
In actuality, the library is priceless.) Your author started her research
there only to find that May Day has been under assault for a thousand
years or more. And, no one really seemed to know what was
celebrated, or when, or exactly why. The scholars on religion had
become so immersed in detail that it was impossible to find the
generic reason for the celebration.
It had somehow to do with, perhaps, an ancient festival of rebirth
and renewal, an occasion of great joy, particularly among the
common people. It dramatized the presentation of the union of spring
and summer, somehow, once upon a time. And, the history of it in the
United States and in England was perhaps the last trace of it all. Your
author went to the public schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,
beginning in the first grade in 1925, and at that time a May pole was
erected in the school yard on May Day. We were all taught to dance
and to wind in and out, one among the other, so that the long rolls of
crepe paper we held, which were also attached to the top of the May
pole, would be woven into an attractive pattern against the pole as we
wound our ways in and out. It was supposed to be an occasion of
great happiness and that feeling still stays with me as I muse upon it.
Outside on the lawn with the school band parents gathered, taking
pride in their children; it was an altogether splendid occasion.
May Day, of course, comes at a time in the Northern Hemisphere
when the trees and flowers are coming into new life and beauty. The
beginning lushness of spring brings both blossoms and flowers. It
May, 1984

Page 19

should be a time of celebration and of recognition of the cycling ofthe

seasons and the periodicity of vegetative life.
In England and Germany, in part from which the habit had been
brought, it was the custom (it is said) to go to the woods, make
garlands of flowers and branches, bring them to the village and
decorate the doors and the windows with flowers. It was called, they
remember, "Bringing home the May." The central theme, the
theorists opined, was that of rebirth symbols brought from the forests
to the cities, that which showed the fertilizing power of fullyawakened
nature. But central to it all was a May pole or a May tree in the city, a
decorated one. In England it was said to have been the White
Hawthorne, a dualistic omen of "good and evil," symbolizing the
transition from spring to summer. In the United States the May pole
was the evergreen Arbutus. And by the May pole sat the queen of the
May who witnessed, rewarded, or perhaps participated in a mock
contest of two individuals. One was the queen of Winter - a man
dressed in woman's clothes; the other the true queen of the Summer,
who always won the contest. In some locales, there was a king of the
May and he had the power to endow crops and women with fertility.

"Of course, a pole is a phallic symbol, therefore central to it all (May Day) was the May
pole. In London, England, they had originally been brought in from the woods each
year, but later became permanent fixtures. The puritans hated them as 'stinckying
idols' and ... had them forbidden by parliament in 1644."
And, of course, a pole is a phallic symbol, therefore cerltral to it allwas
the May pole. In London, England, they had originally been brought in
from the woods each year, but later became permanent fixtures, The
puritans hated them as "stinckying idols" and after a long political
fight had them forbidden by parliament in 1644.
The puritanical writer, Phillip Stubbes, in his Anatomie of Abuses,
first published in London in 1583, with disgust described the festivities
as follows:
"Against May, Whitsonday, or other time, all the yung men
and maides, olde men and wives, gun gadding over night to the
woods, groves, hils, and mountains where they spend the night
in pleasant pastimes; and in the morning they return, bringing
with them birch and branches of trees to deck their assemblies
withall. And no mervaile, for there is a great Lord present
amongst them, as superintendent and Lord over their pastimes
and sportes, namely, Sathan, prince of hel. But the cheifest
jewel they bring from thence is their May-pole, which they bring
home with gret veneration, as thus. They have twentie or fortie
yoke of oxen, every oxen having a sweet nose-gay of flouers
placed on the tip of his homes, and these oxen drawe home this
May-pole (this stinkying ydol, rather), which is covered all over
with floures and hearbs, bound round about with strings, from
the top to the bottome, and sometime painted with variable
colours, with two or three hundred men, women and children
following it with great devotion. And thus beeing reared up,
with handkercheefs
and flags hovering on the top, they straw
the ground rounde about, binde green boughes about it, set up
sommer haules, bowers and arbors hard by it. And then fall they
to daunce about it like as the heathen people did at the
dedication of the Idols, where this is a perfect pattern, or rather
the thing itself. I have heard it credibly reported (and that of
viva voce) by men of great gravitie and reputation, that offortie,
threescore, or a hundred maides going to the wood over night,
there have scaresly the third part of them returned home again
undefiled. "

However, the May pole came back in favour at the time of the
Restoration, the re-establishment of the monarchy in England with
the return of Charles II in 1660. The most famous - and the last one
set up - was in London's Strand, on or about the site of the present
church of St. Mary's on the Strand. It was 134' tall, of cedar and set up
by 12 sailors under the personal supervision of James II, then duke of
York and lord high admiral. The date was 1661. (James IIbecame king

Page 20

May, 1984

*
PURITANICAL BANISHMEf
The American Atheist

and ruled from 1685 to 1688.} Later, in 1717 the May pole was
conveyed to Wanstead Park in Essex, where it was used by sir Isaac
Newton as a part of a support for the largest telescope then known
(presented to the Royal Society by a French astronomer).
The festivities were all over Europe: Germany, Moravia, Bohemia,
Russia, France, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries. There it
was characterized by housecleaning and bringing in of greens,
boughs and flowers to garnish the home. Your author's mother,
indeed, had inherited from her mother and hers before her the ritual
of "Spring housecleaning" on May the First, complete with fresh
flowers and blossoms in the home. Later these were thought to be an
expression of a fructifying spirit of vegetation, newly awakened in the
Spring. Participants were leaf clad, singing ballads, feasting, merry
dancing, engaging in rustic sports. Often there was horse racing with
the victor receiving only a red cloth as a prize. There were garlands of
flowers, canopies of them, nosegays, wreaths of flowers on heads,
hoops made of flowers, and the celebrators each and all went from
door to door to sing, to make acclamations, to recite poems, to give
fresh branches, to be happy. The favorite colors were yellow, red and

,
I

"A day thoroughly resented by the dour religious, but precious still to the common
folk, (May Day) was seized upon by the labor unions of Europe .... It was known
internationally as Labor's Day. But, the fiddling of the power elite with our days of
celebration is notorious. And now May 1st in our nation is nothing."

\
JT OF THE MAY FESTIVAL
Austin, Texas

blue. Music filledthe day. Children, especially young girls, wore white,
and often gaily dressed dolls were a part of the flower arrangements.
Young maidens ran stark naked in the dew. Others washed their
faces in the May Day dew. The old childhood song "Here We Go
Gathering Nuts in May" allegedly dates from ancient times.
Sometimes, the participants went to the woods at night, on the eve of
May Day to blow horns, to stay overnight - taking food with tham->,
to make merry. This "eve" was called by many names, different in
each country: the Walpurgis Night, Beltane Eve, Whitsunstide.
Always the tree brought back was set up in the village green. It
could be fir, or birch, spruce, or pine, or any tree indigenous to the
area. Often, the next day there were bonfires on May Day. In England
one feature of the celebration was the dance of the Morris Men: Robin
Hood, Maid Marion, Will Scarlet, Little John and a Fool in cap and
bells. In some countries hobby-horses played a part, or horse images,
or men dressed as horses.
When it became the habit to look for witches, a sinister element
crept in, for it was believed the witches could sour the milk on the May
Eve, or they could be found lurking in the woods. Precautions had to
be taken against these witches, or their activities on May Eve or May
Day. The grim encounters were with holy water, church bells; the
fumes of incense, smoke, clanging of medals, loud noises of any kind,
the circling of witches' houses. Often the witches were "burned out,"
then, with the smoke from the bonfires which were a precaution
against them.
But where did it all start? And why? Some references are made to
"a period" of celebrating. There was surely more than just May Day,
for May Eve also counted. As one pushes further back into other
customs one finds that the puritans hated it because they thought it
came from the pagan worship of the Romans. The very ancient
Romans used to wind in procession to the grotto of Egeria, from the
28th of April to the 2nd of May. Egeria was an ancient Italian goddess
of springs, or she was a nymph, or a legend. Two distinct localities
were regarded as sacred to her, one of these in the immediate
neighborhood of Rome at the Porta Capena. After the death of king
Numa Pompilius, a very early Italian ruler (he died 673 b.c.) who used
to consult with the goddess, she fled into the grove of Aricia, in the
immediate neighborhood of the grove of Diana Nemorensis, where
she was herself changed into a spring. "Spring" is, after all, what is
. being discussed here (a play on words?).
Perhaps May Day originated in the festival in honor of Flora,
goddess of the flowers, also celebrated about this time, with Roman

May, 1984

Page 21

Games dedicated to her from April 28th to May 3rd. The crowning of
the May queen was the central focus of the celebration. But little or
nothing is available on this old rite.
Some writers speculate that the name may have come from that of
Maia, mother of Mercury to whom the Romans sacrificed on thefirst
day of each month.
Then it was that I simply decided to chuck it all and see ifI could find
an astrological event that occurred on or about the first of May.
Immediately I found it there. The Pleiades "in times of yore" rose in
the middle of May and set in the end of October, situated during that
time in the constellation of Taurus, the Bull. But Taurus is the name of
the second sign of the zodiac, which the sun enters about April 21st
(now). The Vernal Equinox was in this constellation of Taurus when
the constellation was first so named. Because of the westward
precession of the equinoxes, the Vernal Equinox passed into the
constellation Aries. And, it is now in the constellation of Pisces. On
N

PERSEUS

f-;::~e::::::r-L.===r=====t~300
.,..-"--="1""'_=---+--1

20

TAURUS

I--~----If---/---;-----i-----.-'f---i
ORION

10

BeI919""88

III

VI
MCJQnih.&d..

* .~.
I 2 34 5

Nebula

Vanablo 5'0<

The con.tellation Tauna.

T A UR US [t:>' r~s], the Bull, a large ancient constellation, located immediately north of the celestial equator, and
with its center in right ascension at about 4 hr. 30 min.
Its symbol X is the second sign of the zodiac, which the sun
enters on April 20. Within its boundaries are the Pleiades
and the Hyades. The latter is a V-shaped figure of stars,
all of which are faint with the exception of Aldebaran, at the
upper part of the left branch. When in the west, the V
stands upright. In constellation figures, the Pleiades are in
the shoulder of the Bull with the Hyades in his face. Aldebaran represents his eye. As is usual with animal constellations, only the front half of the Bull is depicted by stars.
Taurus is rich in telescopic double stars. About IO north of
the star Zeta is the noted Crab nebula. Chinese records indicate that a brilliant nova appeared in this general location in
A.D. I054, and the nebula is expanding at a rate which would
place its beginning at about that date.
In mythology, Taurus was the snow-white bull which carried Europa to Crete. The Pleiades were seven sisters, daughters of Atlas; the Hyades, their half sisters.
Reference: American People s Encyclopedia
Page 22

May, 1984

the earliest star maps extant, Taurus is the first constellation of the
zodiac, and its rising with the sun ushered in the new year for those
early peoples.
The Pleides were the seven daughters of Atlas and Pleione, or
seven sisters, or seven virgins, who were changed into stars as a
result of their activities on earth. Basically the stories run that a
hunter (Orion) pursued them, and the gods to whom they prayed for
deliverance turned them into doves and placed them among the stars.
Now, this beautiful little Pleiades cluster, whose stars are enmeshed
in nebulosities, are in the shoulder of the Bull. Shaped like a tiny
dipper, this group attracts immediate attention when well up in a
clear, dark sky. It brightness, its radiance, speaks to happiness and to
a bon vivant. The group is particularly rich in bright stars and is fullof
nebulosity. The central star and several others are all brighter than
fifth magnitude. The central and brightest one is of third magnitude.
They are visible to the unaided eye on a clear night when there is no
moonlight. Although usually six stars are identified in the group, the
myth of the seven sisters prevails, for one sister cannot be seen, being
in hiding. There are are more than 200 stars which are known to
belong to the Pleiades cluster, and many of the stars are very
luminous (intrinsically bright B-type blue giant stars). The star group
was much admired by all ancient peoples in both the Old and the New
Worlds and was allegedly worshipped by the Egyptians .
That is all that is known by this author at this writing. It seems most
probable that May Day was another recognition by primitive man of
another natural phenomenon in the skies. This time it was
recognizing that a very beautiful, bright, luminous group of stars
appeared in the heavens in late April and stayed there for the summer
months, the months of warmth and plenty. And, the stars appeared
exactly at the time that Spring is slowly being coaxed by the sun into
its time slot.
Despised by the puritans, hounded off the calendar by them in
England, under grave assault in the United States by the same
religious fanatics, it held on until the early 1900s when it became a day
for children dancing around a May pole, not a day for the adults. A day
thoroughly resented by the dour religious, but precious still to the
common folk, it was seized upon by the labor unions of Europe. In
1889, the International Socialist Congress designated May 1, 1890 as
the day for labor demonstrations in Europe and the United States, as
they fought for the eight-hour day. May Day for years continued to be
the day when strikes or demonstrations of workers have taken place.
It was known internationally as Labor's Day. But, the fiddling of the
power elite with our days of celebration is notorious, and now May 1st
in our nation is nothing. "Labor Day," as solemn as the politicians who
named it, has been moved tothe first Monday in September, bereft of
its history.
What was an awakening knowledge of the workings of the seasons,
of nature, of our earth's pathway through the sky, of the precession of
the equinoxes, has been corrupted to nothing at all. The Atheists
should celebrate the appearance ofthe Pleiades in the sky, each year.
But no one is aware, anymore, of the phenomenon. We seldom see
the stars at night, and few ifany people are aware of the constellations
or the maps of the stars. We should seize this date again to be a day of
revelry, of music, dancing, flower gathering, singing, and joy. Life is
for the living, for being glad that we are what we are and that we have
an understanding of ourselves as a part of all nature. Life is a
celebration and any time that we can seize upon a spectacular natural
event to emphasize the regularity, the simplicity, the beauty of nature
and life, it is incumbent upon us to do it. There has been, through the
natural curiosity of humankind and the desire that we have to
analyze, a continual unfolding of information concerned with all
animal life, our nest in the sky, our nature. Instead of exhalting over
each tidbit, we have the dogs of religion attacking each gain, returning
us to the abyss of ignorance in which we no longer need to dwell.
American Atheists greet you this May Day and wishes you well.
Take time out to celebrate - and on May Eve why don't you step
outside and see ifyou can see the Pleiades and tip your wine glass in a
toast to nature and our stars. ~
.

The American Atheist

INERTIA

willprobably never come to accept certain social conditions, even

though I fully understand that people, in general, are, and willmost
likely remain, the way they are. There are all sorts of people, of
course: from active to inactive; from intelligent 'to dim-witted; from
honest to unscrupulous. The human species encompasses an
enormous scope of categories. I often find myself wondering if this is
really the way it should be, or if possibly some time in the distant
future all people willeventually become more closely patterned.
Psychologists seem to be no more closely aligned in their societal
explanations than are the many members of the world community
that they try to psychoanalyze. Some claim that personality
differences are inherited genetically, while others attribute drastic
differences to learning proficiencies/deficiencies. Here again I am
caused to wonder: Who psychoanalyzes the psychoanalysts? For
instance, how can two people read the same sentences or examine
the same evidences, or witness the same given set of circumstances,
and arrive at two totally different conclusions? I have been told that it
isbecause everyone has a right to "view things differently." Yet who,
with properly functioning eyesight, could view the color green and call
it anything other than green! Of course, there are unavoidable
mitigations registered by the transitional change of the color
spectrum from blue to yellow. Some of the hues are hard to
distinguish - yet green is green in the final analysis. At the same time,
I can understand that optional values may be easily applied to those
shades of color ranging in between blue and green and between green
and yellow. These are areas generally governed by "matters of
opinion." Differences of opinion here are generated by the fact that
the color spectrum changes in micro degrees of color variance that
defy accurate visual interpretation.
But let us take this human "difference of opinion" property and try
to apply it in another area, one in which there are no micro degrees of
variance. Let's apply it to the topic of slavery (to make myself clearly
understood - bondage slavery). Is the practice right or wrong?;
permissible or impermissible; ethical or unethical? Who can dare to
say that it ispermissible? In so doing that person would be stating that
it was entirely permissible, under certain circumstances, to himself/herself be enslaved! Slavery is wrong! Totally wrong under any
circumstances.! One can no more be "a little bit enslaved" than one
can be "a little bit pregnant." So you see, there are areas of clear
definitive possibility.
Why, then, for so many centuries has humankind sanctioned,
legally justified, and! or participated in something that is heinous at its
face value? Slavery today would be the same activity that it was a
hundred years ago. Ignoble acts, it seems, are eventually abandoned
with time. Why? Is it because we were blind to the differences
between right and wrong? Or is it because we will permit antisocial
Austin, Texas

acts so long as we may personally benefit from such acts? If either

possibility were true we are indeed a sorrowful species!
Perhaps I have become, through life experiences, a naive and
incurable human romanticist. If I truly thought that people would
never be able to distinguish right from wrong nor ever abstain from
justifying antisocial behavior for the sake of personal gain, I'm afraid I
would find life a rather unpleasant experience. Yet, there is not one
era of history or one existing cultural arena in which I can find traces
of justification for my continuing confidence that humanity will, in
time, become intelligently and tolerantly oriented in the matter of
dealing with other individuals. If"personal opinions" are to be the only
guideline for our treatment of people, we are presently in serious
trouble!
After all these considerations - all this rhetoric about just or unjust
- I arrive back at the same conclusions I have continually noted; the
education of the human mind is failing to keep pace with the strain of
maintaining individual lifestyles! Knowledge and technology have
sloshed over the limits of our brains .... Or have they? Perhaps not. I
feel that our entire approach to education is wrong - terribly wrong.
We have become stymied in our attempts to keep up with the new
and available information as it is generated. Mental inertia will not
allow an accelerated acquisition and appreciation of being able to
accurately and precisely evaluate broadening circumstances included in the continuity of the world community. We scarcely learned
the complexities of Earth-bound aerodynamics before we left the
Earth and ventured to the moon and neighboring planets. "Flat-Earth
minds" can still be heard to say, "if god had intended us to fly he'd
have given us wings." Knowledge has become an "elastic tether"
soaring off into space with human understanding stretching grudgedly behind. Competence, mired by the inertia of the human mind, it's
inability to realize the significance of new and better information, is
failingto keep pace with the increasing availability of information. The
problem is chronic in scope. Knowledge willcontinue to accelerate at
a phenomenal rate. Specialists in various fields willmove so far ahead
of the lay populace that education gaps may lengthen considerably.
Indeed, even specialists become so far removed from parallel
specialists that entire fields of education may become impaired. (This
may already be seen in the various "departments" of physics.) The
human brain is simply an organic "computer." No matter how we
view it our mental capabilities have certain limitations the same as do
electronic computing devices. When properly furnished with right
information, the brain can be quite an extraordinary device. When
misinformed or left to lay idle, it can be equally unproductive.
Quite likely future generations willlook back on the schools of "our
times" in much the same manner as we do the one-room schools of
the nineteenth century. They were able to "teach" only the

May, 1984

Page 23

fundamentals of education: to read, to write, and to "cipher."

Actually, fundamental principles of education may be quite enough
for futuristic principles of acquisition of information. If the human
brain proves incapable of absorbing sufficient data to properly
evaluate the vast nomenclature of technological information, we may
need to subsidize our stored knowledge capabilities with electronic
apparatus. In fact, we have already entered this area significantly.
Have we not been using other memory enhancing devices for
centuries. Dictionaries and encyclopedias are commonplace in most
households! Would you, in your wildest imagination, try to remember
all the word definitions and informational essays included in these two
sources? Then why not learn how to use something slightly more
sophisticated in order to gain access to all fields of knowledge that are
available to us even now? At some point nationally sponsored
educational facilities must incorporate computerized memory data
systems. I can see that future educational systems, at best, willonly
be able to instruct fundamental courses of 'language communication
and basic mathematics while devoting the balance of classroom time
to the operation of massive computer systems in order to be able to
access all previously acquired knowledge. Up to a point, textbooks
and encyclopedias have filled a similar need. However, the use of
printed reference books willprove to be too slow, too limited in topic
coverage (due to space availability), and too expensive when we take
into consideration the numerous volumes that it would take to
compete with computer-stored information.
What I have come to realize is that "schools" - the classic varieties
to which we are accustomed - are becoming obsolete. Costs,
crowded conditions, incompetence, and intrusions of interests other
than academic (i.e. religion, sports, social biases, etc.) have seriously
impaired our teaching/learning programs. Fortunately, people are
fascinated by electronic gear. The video game mania bears witness to
this. Could that "fascination" not be transferred to the operation of
individually owned television-computer data centers in the home?
This would make available the information contained in every
reference text, in every library, on every topic, of every field known to
humanity - and with continuing "updated" editions.
The idea has already been put to use in the medical field. The
longstanding problems of diagnosis have been reduced in some areas
by the availability of computerized diagnosis based on symptoms
described by the inquirer.
It is apparent that some very serious mistakes have been made in
our early educational practices. The most serious is that of
communication. As if medical doctors did not have enough
educational ground to cover, they must also acquaint themselves
with a "dead" language form, Latin. Such a waste of time is
burdensome to any effort. A major portion of time spent in the
physics class is not spent pondering the laws and theoretics of
physics, but to learn a very time-consuming system of "communication," i.e., signs and symbols. Even to study music we must
turn our backs on ordinary numbers and letters and express
ourselves with alien utterances like: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, etc.
It seems as though humans are intensely intrigued by a "secret
code" syndrome in which every clique-like group of players must have
its own language form that cannot easily be understood by
"outsiders." Ifan ordinary language system is not adequate to handleall communication, how will people ever be able to comprehend
educational progress in general. We cannot all learn the exclusive
"language" of music or the symbols of science or the numerous
medical terms. I do not imply that everyone should be proficient in all
fields. Yet, lack of general knowledge in important areas is the main
reason for society's problems. If people were better informed in
medicine and diseases, would venereal disease be as widespread as it
is? If people were cognizant of the information made available by
sociologists, would there be uncontrolled population expansion
everywhere? And if people had an adequate acquaintance with the
sciences, would they still kneel to imbecilic superstitions called
religion?
On the other hand, an elaborate educational device such as I have
described would probably fail miserably as have conventional
Page 24

May, 1984

educational programs - and for the same reasons. Many people

would probably use it the same as they now use present home
computers - to play games. Once again the effort required to
research and learn would give way to an ongoing tendency to engage
in trivial distractions. Thus another attempt to elevate human
intelligence would go down the drain of mental inertia.
It seems, as always, the only hope for improvement lies in a
program that would somehow motivate reasonably intelligent people.
For centuries most thoughtful persons have stood by quietly while
lying politicians and insane goddists do all the talking, make all the
rules, and give all the commands. Then, because "average" people
lack sufficient conviction, they respond obligingly. Has any offended
parent in history ever shredded the gideon bible his/her child brought
home from school and dumped the confettied pages on the
conference table at a subsequent school board meeting? Probably
not! Why not? It is because "thoughtful" people are too damn lazy
(and in most cases too spineless) to meet their obligations! It is easier
to simply do nothing and allow the infringement to go on in a
continuing way. Meanwhile the ignorance of our nation grows
because the ignorance of those who are active goes unopposed. For
many years it was supposed that the judicial system of the U.S.
government would oppose unnecessary intrusions into the private
lives of the citizens and thereby protect the legitimate instruction of
the young in our nation. What a foolish dream! Currently it is the
judicial system that allows such intrusions by clearing "legal" paths
for the sick minds that continually invade our pitifully defended
classrooms!

"Remember - inertia works two ways: (1) A

body at rest tends to remain at rest; (2)A body
in motion tends to remain in motion. It has
been my experience that people, once motivated, tend to remain so."
What each person, individually, must do is motivate himself/
herself! Do not look to elected religious puppets for help! Do not look
to religious judges and/or legal aid services (which are usually
quasireligious themselves)! Do not think that some Atheist gladiator,
singlehandedly, can do the work that must be done by thousands.
The effort must be as organized as has been the intrusion. Fanaticism
has served the religious well. Logical effort must be incorporated in
order to overcome the inertial inactivity of those who would rid
themselves of illogically manifested domination.
If you take the first step, others will at least be aware of your
movement. Remember - inertia works two ways: (1) A body at rest
tends to remain at rest; (2) A body in motion tends to remain in
motion. It has been my experience that people, once motivated, tend
to remain so. Their activities, once begun, no matter how slight, will
inevitably have an effect on every person around them. ~
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 for an Atheist movement to be proud of.

The American Atheist

OF THE TUNNEL / Michael Bettencourt

SUCK
,~

4-t,\

nGeorge Orwell's bildungsroman Such, Such Were The Joys ... ,

he talks about having "suck" with the headmaster and his wife.
"Suck" was pull, influence, an insider's hand that got the sucker
sweets, attention, position. The term also had its smarmy side, as
Orwell explains with an unflinching saddened anger. Having suck
inevitably abraded any dignity down to simple self-interest, reduced
altruism to calculation. In a word, individuality got bought off and any
impulses to rebel against the arbitrary despotism of the headmaster
and his wife were shunted like old railroad cars to a sideyard of envy,
greed, and bitching one-upmanship. Orwell, through the lens of his
gawky adolescence, focuses for us the dry rot of tyranny, the
unavoidable ossifying of the spirit that the pursuit of favor incurs.
But is there anything really wrong with suck? Isn't this how the
world works? You have to go along to get along, the politicians say,
and we all have our tales of compromise. Perhaps Orwell is wrong,
merely cranky because, by his own account, he never could get the
suck, and he simply disguised his crankiness and failure in his usual
. smooth prose. Don't we, after all, have an obligation to look out for
ourselves?

The answers to these questions depend in large part on how

powerless one is. To someone who has in some sense arrived, who
has enough money to pay bills and enough leisure to enjoy the money
left over, it's easy for him to argue that integrity ought to be preserved
at any cost precisely because his integrity is not being challenged. He
is not racked by any particular envy, not subservient to any interest
(even if he is a subordinate at his job), and answers largely to his own
drummer. This is an easy integrity, an integrity by default because
unthreatened by any venom, an integrity infected with righteousness.
But the defense of integrity does not come so easily for someone
who dances to another's piper. Integrity at that point becomes only
one among other options, to be donned when the occasion demands
or permits. The route for the powerless to the crumbs dropped by the
powerful is, to borrow Paul Simon's phrase, to "slip-slide away," play
the Artful Dodger among egos build like the Hall of Mirrors at
Versailles. At these murky depths surety is expedient. While the
moralist in the bathysphere, brandishing the lamp of his integrity, may
believe he's beaten back the darkness, the truth IS that the lanternfish
prowling the darkness for each 'other with their phosphorescent
twinges of bait rule this ethical niche.
But doesn't something absolute hold, some moral dike that needs
no fingers? Must everything be relative, subject to political negotiation? Let us examine Phillips Exeter Academy, where I work as a
teacher of English, a place touted by Time magazine as "the most
prestigious secondary school in the country." John Phillips declared
in 1781in the deed of gift that the essence of the Exeter education was
the teaching of goodness with knowledge and the learning of the "real
business-of life." It would seem, then, that if any place were to be an
educational and ethical mecca, Phillips Exeter Academy would be the
best candidate, a haven which appears to preserve some version of
the absolute pieties.
Yet it only took a semester here before I heard about "college
suck," those things on the resume that will sufficiently impress an
admissions officer from an Ivy League school to recommend a
student for election. I hear students counsel one another to do one
activity or another for suck, disregarding whether or not they'll enjoy
the activity. The students get the message quickly, as they usually do:
You gotta have a job, right? Right. And it's better to have a job that
pays a lot? Right again. And you gotta get into a good college, better
Austin, Texas

an Ivy than a state school, to get the papers that get you the job? Right
three times. So I'm going for suck because ifI don't, I'm not gonna get
my Betamax .
Unimpeachable logic, of a sort, and a logic that we on the faculty
don't do much to dissuade. Oh, we talk long and earnestly with
students about learning for its own sake and the importance of
answering to one's own conscience, and it takes with some students,
but it's mostly palaver. Our actions here speak more loudly. We say
not to be overly concerned with grades, we even chide students for
being "grade-grubbers," yet we don't change the system so that
grades aren't a temptation. We talk about not going to college and
instead going out to discover a world. Yet we maintain an athletic
college placement office that begins its indoctrination at the beginning
of the junior year (which supplements what the parents have been
saying since the day of birth). We would never think of making an
"alternatives-to-college" placement office. So the students don't miss
the inside story: the "real business of life" is to do the things that get
you somewhere, that give "suck." The rest - exhortations to the joy
of learning - they readily, and rightly, see as blather.
So even the best at its very best replays the old conundrum: the
powerful, the faculty who are comfortable and adult, offer to the
powerless, the adolescents, an empty ethic, an ethic not good for
another decade or so. The powerless, in their turn, go about business
as they see it. Perhaps Orwell, then, was being merely ethically
archaic when he detailed the damages of such, a man superbly out of
touch with his age.
And yet that assertion just doesn't sit right. The students may be
right about how they see things, but it is not a right in the end worth
being right about. For suck is never done without a cost, an arrears in
the spirit that manifests itself in dissatisfaction and anxiety and
emotional discord. Of course, the ethical repugnance of suck needs
to be balanced with the real-life necessity of compromise, but in the
end suck ought not become a habit because the price is too high. No
matter what the cost, integrity is the better, if not the easier, option.
Cyril Connolly, in his book Enemies of Promise, says that Orwell as
a child was never a "stage rebel" but a real one. Suck is stage
rebellion; integrity, real rebellion. We faculty would do better to teach
that real business rather than the business exposed by our hypocrisy,
and we would all do better to do less stage managing and more living.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Mr. Bettencourt, a Harvard graduate and teacher at a private

college preparatory school, joined our writing staff in October
1983.

May, 1984

Page 25

THE DOW? ALL THIS TIME I THOUGHT'IOU MEANT THE TAO.

Page 26

May, 1984

The American Atheist

AMERICAN A THEIST RADIO SERIES / Madalyn Murray O'Hair

THE FRIENDSHIP LIBERAL LEAGUE

Program #165; Originally broadcast on October 18, 1971

When the first installment of a regularly scheduled, fifteen minute, once a week, American Atheist
radio series on KTBC radio, Austin, Texas (a station owned by then president Lyndon Baines Johnson)
hit the airwaves on June 3rd, 1968, the nation was shocked. The programs had to be submitted weeks
in advance and were heavily censored. The series was concluded on October 18th, 1975 when no
further funding was available.

ack in 1955 an Atheist organization got on the air two times, for
a fifteen minute presentation each time. The station was
WMLV, Millville, New Jersey; the date was August 14,1955, at 11:45
a.m., on a Sunday. The person delivering the broadcast was the
president of the organization, Ken Whitten. Let me read this to you
now:
* * * * *
Ladies and gentlemen of the radio audience.
As this is the first time that the Friendship Liberal League has been
on this station it is likely that many listening never before have heard
of this organization. Therefore a brief statement ofits purpose willbe
in order so that we may know each other better.
The League was organized in 1883, and two years later, just
seventy years ago, was granted a charter by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania to be a non-profit, social and educational corporation.
Its purpose, as declared in the charter, is to unite its members socially
for their intellectual and moral improvement, by the dissemination of
scientific truths by means of music, literature, lectures and debates.
In order to achieve this objective a Sunday public forum has been held
for many years in which all subjects of general human interest have
been discussed, from all viewpoints, both for and against. This activity
is for the enlightenment and entertainment of its members and all
others who are cordially invited to attend.
In order to carryon the work of the League there must be liberty of
speech, press and assemblage for everyone to express his opinions,
regardless of his views or how controversial they may be. This is the
basis of the American way of life as guaranteed in the Constitution
which the founding fathers of our country bequeathed to us. These
men, Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas
Paine and all the others had all experienced the denial of these rights
by the British king and his parliament and had risked their lives and
liberty in rebellion against such tyranny. They knew that these
conditions still existed throughout the whole world and they were
determined to end them forever in the new nation they were building
for themselves and their posterity. They knew that only when men
were free to discuss, examine, accept or reject any or all proposals
could truth eventually be arrived at. They were keenly aware of the
bonds in which mankind had been held by ancient laws and dogmas of
state and church and they carefully provided in the immortal
document which they drew up that the state should be completely
secular and that in matters of religion each citizen could believe or
disbelieve as he thought to be correct, without fear of the rack, the
dungeon or the stake. As Thomas Jefferson aptly put it, "they erected
an impregnable wall of separation" between them.
We who now enjoy the freedoms handed down to us must not
assume that there was no opposition to these new freedoms inherent
in the newly founded nation. There have always been individuals and
groups who, while strongly aserting their own right to free speech,
press and assemblage to propagate their ideas, have been just as
vocal in their demands that persons or groups opposing their views
should be silenced. No doubt many now listening have heard others
say, "There should be a law to prevent this or that" - always
meaning, of course, that no one should be allowed to say anything
Austin, Texas

contrary to their own views on politics, religion, economics, foreign

policy, etc. Time after time the U.S. Supreme Court has decided
against such limitations when they have been enacted into laws, and
has said emphatically that those who advocate ideas which others do
not like have a complete right to express them; that the right to
oppose or disbelieve anything is precisely the same as the right to
advocate or believe. If this were not so there would be no true
freedom. Men's ideas differ on many things, religion for example. The
founding fathers knew the evils of an established religion, where the
adherents of one sect controlled the government and penalized all
dissenters. They had seen Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson
driven into the wilderness, and quakers hanged in Massachusetts
because they spoke against the established religion of the colony.
They had seen the wars between the colonies of Virginia and
Maryland over differences of religion. To prevent this in the new
nation they wrote into the first article of the Billof Rights, "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof ... " This was done to prevent the
government from controlling religious beliefs and to prevent any
religious group or sect from controlling the government and using the
funds and powers of the state to suppress dissenters.

"Until (the founding fathers') time there never

had been universal education. Only private
schools existed, mostly conducted by religious
sects, ... To broaden this field various states of
the Union began a system of providing funds
for these schools so that more children might
be taught. This resulted in contention and
confusion and a general scramble for public
funds. Finally ... the concept of the free, public,
nonsectarian schools for all children was
established. "
It was in this spirit that Friendship Liberal League was founded. The
latter half of the nineteenth century was a time of great discovery.
Many matters which we now accept without question were then hotly
debated, the Theory of Evolution, for example. Great minds were
examining old ideas and offering new ones. Geology was questioning
the calendar of genesis and fundamentalists were sternly resisting. All
along the line there was a vast field for debate and the League's forum
furnished a rostrum from which all views could be heard. In recent
years new issues have arisen causing much controversy, and again
we find individuals and groups holding various viewpoints religious,
economic, political and otherwise clamoring for the suppression of all
dissent. Demands are made that the government should uphold this
or that view and throw all opponents into jail.
In this brief talk it is not possible to cover the wide range of issues or
the many ways that are being tried to limit our traditional freedoms by

May, 1984

Page 27

interested groups, some must be left for later talks. What will be
specifically dealt with now is the struggle to alter the present public
school system to include private schools in the distribution of public
funds.
Our forefathers knew that the tyrannies that existed in other lands
were largely the result of the ignorance of the people. They realized
that the democracy which they envisioned could only exist among an
educated, literate people. Until their time there never had been
universal education. Only private schools existed, mostly conducted
by religious sects, and primarily intended to indoctrinate the pupils
with the dogmas of the sect. With few exceptions only those children
received any teaching whose parents could afford to pay for their
tuition. To broaden this field various states of the Union began a
system of providing funds for these schools so that more children
might be taught. This resulted in contention and confusion and a
general scramble for public funds. Finally through the efforts of
Horace Mann and others the concept of the free, public, nonsectarian
schools for all children was established.
Some sects did not like this situation and continued to maintain
their own private schools at their own expense, never ceasing,
however, their own efforts to again get public funds for them.
At the present time this has become one of the most important
controversial issues, and tremendous pressures are being brought to
bear on the U.S. Congress to have these private schools included in
any distribution of federal funds granted in aid to the public school
systems of the various states. The claim is made that as they teach
many children the same secular subjects as do the public schools, the
private schools are a public benefit and should be publi'clysupported.
In a very limited sense this is true, but if this was the only function of
these schools there would be no need for their existence - they
would only be an unnecessary second system, where one is entirely
sufficient.
The real reason for their being is to teach the children the sectarian
religious dogmas of the sect that maintains the schools, which is, of
course, a Constitutional right. But the Constitution forbids the
federal government giving any aid in the teaching of religion and any
allocation of funds to sectarian schools would be exactly that.
Consider the resultant situation if Congress were to approve the
financing of private schools with public funds. Utter confusion would
result. There are about 300 religious sects in America, not all
christian. Only a few sects now maintain their own schools, possibly
on account of the expense. But with millions of dollars of public
moneys to be had, most if not all sects would set up schools and
engage in a glorious scramble for maintenance funds. All the quarrels
and squabbles of the past would come alive again. The public school
system, with its democracy including all children, would disappear
and a new generation, intensely sectarian in its viewpoint, would arise
to revive all the discarded religious animosities which have happily so
largely disappeared under our nonsectarian secular system of
education.
We of the Friendship Liberal League are not opposed to freedom of
religion; we are for it. We are for a form of government such as we
have. A government which deals with the affairs of its citizens in their
social relations and leaves to each individual the right to believe or
disbelieve whatever he pleases, and to express his views in speech or
writing, individually or in association with others, so long as they obey
the laws democratically instituted. We believe that the nonsectarian,
public school system is best suited to develop good citizens for a
democracy and that only it should receive public funds for its support.
In later talks other important issues of the day will be discussed.
There are many of them and a correct solution of our problems
demands a widespread understanding of them by an informed
citizenry. Only by maintaining our rights of free speech, press and
assembly can this be realized. We hope to be able to address you
again on this station soon. Thank you.
* * * * *
Unfortunately, this organization gave up the ghost recently. It did
not sustain a radio program, but preferred to deliver the message it
had to offer via a small magazine, leaflets and the sale of books. ~
Page 28

May, 1984

DIAL-AN-ATHEIST
CHAPTERS OF AMERICAN A THEISTS
The telephone listings below are the various message services
where you may listen to short comments on state/church
separation issues and/or viewpoints originated by the Atheist
community.

DIAL-THE-ATHEIST
Tucson, Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona
Orange, California
S. Francisco, California
Denver, Colorado
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Tampa Bay, Florida
Atlanta, Georgia
Chicago, Illinois
Central Illinois
Evansville, Indiana
Des Moines, Iowa
Lexington, Kentucky
New Orleans, Louisiana
Boston, Massachusetts
Detroit, Michigan
Eastern Missouri
Reno, Nevada
Northern New Jersey
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Schenectady, New York
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
Portland, Oregon
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Houston, Texas
Dial-a-Gay-Atheist
Salt Lake City, Utah
Northern Virginia
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Toronto, Ontario, Canada

(512) 458-5731
(602) 623-3861
(602)
(714)
(415)
(303)
(305)
(813)
(404)
(312)
(217)
(812)
(515)
(606)
(504)
(617)
(313)
(314)
(702)
(201)
(505)
(518)
(405)
(503)
(412)
(713)
(713)
(801)
(703)
(804)
(416)

267-0777
771-0797
974-1750
692-9395
584-8923
577-7154
962-5052
772-8822
328-4465
425-1949
266-6133
278-8333
897-9666
969-2682
721-6630
771-8894
972-8203
777-0766
884-7360
346-1479
677-4141
771-6208
734-0509
664-7678
457-6660
364-4939
280-4321
588-0118
277-4663

The American Atheist

REPORT FROM INDIA / Margaret Bhatty

HOLY COW

ver a hundred years back, in 1857, the British raj was rudely
shaken by a rebellion which broke out first among Indian
soldiers and quickly spread to the populace, particularly in
north and central India. Colonial historians call it the Indian mutiny,
but our national writers describe it as our first war of independence.
Among the reasons for this revolt was the rumour that the religious
purity of hindu and muslim soldiers was at risk with the introduction
of a new cartridge in the army. To prime their muzzle-loaders the men
had to tear off the paper casing with their teeth. Among the hindus it
was rumoured that the protective coating of grease was beef tallow,
while the muslims believed it was lard from that abomination called
the pig.
Today beef tallow is back again making headlines, though we don't
expect to see a repeat of the bloody scenario of 1857. However, the
opposition is getting a lot of mileage out of the accusation that
because of the government's "criminal" neglect thousands of
unknowing hindus have become bhrasth (impure) and lost their
essential hinduness.
The lid blew off when officials discovered a letter of credit in favour
of a manufacturer of hydrogenated cooking oil which he was
marketing as shudh vanaspati or pure vegetable butter. The import
licence was for 130,000,000 rupees worth of beef tallow! Random
sampling revealed he'd been mixing it with the vanaspati. In a country
where beef-eating is seen as a heinous crime and the cow venerated
as a mother (mata) this revelation has understandably caused feelings
to run high.
Fortunately for us the culprit concerned is not a muslim but a
hindu, otherwise we might have witnessed another bloody round-of
communal frenzy. Muslims slaughter and sell beef as well as eat it.
Hindu priests of certain shrines in places where this abomination
has been detected now refuse to accept food and sweetmeats
brought by devotees for the gods. Some pious hindu groups have held
ritual purification of such areas with a lavish use of Ganges (among
the filthiest rivers in the world) water.
To prevent further mischief by obscurantist .politicians the
government banned all import of tallow in June, 1983. This has
jeapordised thousands of jobs in small soap units where the tallow is
used. It is also needed in many other consumer products, but these
manufacturers are keeping a low profile for fear of losing both their
market and their credibility.
The scandal has triggered off a debate on the nature of the "sin"
committed by those who ingested this horrifying mix unsuspectingly.

Austin, Texas

The shankaracharya of Dwarka, equivalent to a high pontiff (or at

least one of them) has declared that all those who have "unknowingly" consumed it have not committed any sin. "There is no sin
unless you do it knowingly and intentionally," he says. Besides, all
those who have become bhrasth can perform suitable penances
which any brahmin priest can administer to them.
Sin as a notion concerned with morality and guilt is found chiefly in
islam and christianity. But the hindu concept of sin goes much further
and covers every imaginable accident which might befall an ordinary
householder in the course of a normal day. Unknowing or knowing,
each carries its own penance. These transgressions are classified
according to their gravity under ati-pataka (sins beyond classification), maha-tataka (great sins), anu-pataka (minor sins or mortal
sins) and upa-pataka (venial sins).
Penance, or prajapatya, is tedious and elaborate and of many
kinds. One might last 12 days in which the sinner eats precisely 22
mouthfuls of food only at night for the first 3 days, 26 mouthfuls during
night and day for the next 3 days, 28 mouthfuls thereafter and
complete fasting for the last three days.
Nirad Chaudhuri in his book on Hinduism lists in some detail the
various sins and their atonement. Among the most heinous of venial
sins is to cause the death of a cow, wittingly or unwittingly. Penance is
severe even ifa farmer loses a cow from exposure, accident or as prey
to a tiger. Not a horn, bone or tailor ear should be injured. One form
of penance for a sinner guilty of bovicide is to go from door to door
with a rope around his neck and grass in his mouth, begging for food
by bellowing like a cow.
In all the astounding range of food taboos found in hinduism, some
even tied in with seasonal and astral control, some including
vegetables like onion and garlic, the most supreme taboo is beef.
Ritual impurity is attached even to the dishes in which it is cooked.
Many hindus attach the same odium to all flesh and fish; though one
now finds the orthodox eating eggs, but these must be unfertilised
ones - they are called "vegetarian eggs"!
In the 19th century hindus believed that one lost caste by crossing
the sea. But when this belief became outdated a second superstition
still persisted that those who visited beef-eating countries in the west
had to undergo ritual purification before being accepted back into
their own caste. Part of this penance involved swallowing five
products of the sacred cow called panch gavya - milk, ghee, curd,
urine and dung. Lavish gifts had also to be made to brahmin priests.
There is a constitutional clause which seeks to protect all milch
May, 1984

Page 29

cattle from slaughter, but this is not enough for orthodox hind us who
would like to see a total ban even on old and decrepit cattle being
killed. For many months now a political agitation has been going on to
stop the export of beef to the Gulf.

In 1979,when the Janata government was in power, the late Vinoba

Bhave went on "a fast unto death" to urge the government to impose
an all-India ban even on the slaughter of useless cattle. Morarji Desai,
in keeping with his pious image, agreed to move a constitutional
amendment. Fortunately, he didn't last long enough to for that to
come about. But while in office he appealed to all states to impose a
ban. West Bengal, where 20%of the population eats beef, and Kerala,
where 40%of the population - including some brahmin castes - eat
beef, refused to go along with this. We may not have a thriving beef
exporting industry, but we do have a large leather industry which
supports countless traditional craftsmen of the untouchable caste.
Most peasants are more pragmatic about their old cows and
buffaloes and sell them to butchers in cities. Or they turn them loose
in the jungle. These feral cattle do immense damage to forests and
standing crops. Our city streets are filledwith stray cattle to which the
pious throw a morsel to acquire merit. It is certainly not out of any
feelings of compassion that these gaunt creatures are allowed to live,
feeding on garbage. stained rags. paper and human excreta.
Bhave's plea as long as he lived was to have the government set up
centres to herd and maintain all our useless cattle. That would
certainly have been something in a country which hasn't even got
around yet to providing for its aged.

The rig veda, the most ancient text dating to the Aryan settlement
of the Gangetic plain, mentions the use of ox-hide in preparing the
sacred ritual drink called soma. Certain gods were honoured by the
sacrificing of cattle. A bridal hymn tells of the slaying of oxen for the
marriage feast. A funeral hymn mentions the ritual of enveloping the
corpse in cow's flesh before cremation.
Being a pastoral people, the Aryans also laid great stress on
preserving milch cattle, but not the degree of morbidity we have
today. Barren and useless cows were slaughtered. Beef was the best
food one could offer a very distinguished guest or a rishi (sage). Later
texts mention beef as a food of the common man as well as the
brahmin. In fact, it was the excesses of animal sacrifices which led
Buddha to emphasise non-injury to animals in his teachings. But even
when India was a buddhist country, beef-eating continued for another
three centuries. When hindu orthodoxy made a comeback, driving
huddhism out of India throuqh suppression and persecution. it set
about assimilating the remnants of that religion, even to including
Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu the god.
The buddhist precept ot respect for hte was taken to its extremist
limit in an abnormal reverence of the cow, the abjurement of liquor,
and the adoption of vegetarianism and taboo foods as a mark of piety.
But in an agricultural country such as ours, the question of cattle
wealth should be an economic one, not religious. With the growing
revivalism among hindus, no politician has the courage to try and
change things too drastically. The current beef tallow controversy is a
sample of the kind of rigid mentality that bedevils the entire problem

~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
In 1978 your editors, assisted by Joseph Edamaruku, editor of
an 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 attempt to do so in the future.
She joined the staff of the American Atheist in January 1983.

.- -

---

I
t

"Bhave's plea as long as he lived was to have

the government set up centres to herd and
maintain all our useless cattle. That would
certainly have been something in a country
which hasn't even got around yet to providing
for its aged."
The argument put forward by the pious is that one should not kill
the creature whose milk one has drunk. By the same yardstick, then,
we should show even greater reverence for the buffalo. But whatever'
the argument, the whole problem leaves India with the largest cattle
population and the lowest milk yield.
Efforts to improve stock by cross-breeding with imported cattle
have also run into trouble, even though yields have increased and
helped the small farmer. Whereas the tradition has been to venerate
the humped breed of cow, it becomes a little awkward when she gets
replaced by a smaller half-jersey brought in from abroad. One's
maternal parent stock becomes bastardised! For spiritual purposes,
therefore, the orthodox would like to keep Indian cows recognisably
Indian.
For all the controversy, scholars find evidence of beef-eating in
ancient writings. Gandhi believed that the killing of cows and beefeating was prohibited by hinduism, but scriptural texts indicate that it
was in vogue even as late as the early christian era.
Page 30

May, 1984

MART'IROOM OF ST. BERNARO

The American Atheist

_-=THE ANGRY YOUNG ATHEIST / Jeff Frankel

CARLIN ON CHRISTIANITY
U

ntil Lenny Bruce came along in the late '50s, no comedian ever
had the nerve to stand up on a stage and deliver biting
commentaries on the state of our society. Lenny even dared to speak
of religion in a facetious manner. For his bravery (and because so
much of what he said was on target) Bruce was literally persecuted to
death. Before his life came to a premature end, however, he had a
hand in discovering a young comic who (he told many) would one day

assume his throne as the king of the social comics. Lenny's discovery
first achieved success as a "straight" comic, drawing $12,500 per
week as an opening act at the Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas. One fateful
night in September, 1970 this comic appeared before a convention of
salesmen. Instead of his usual stand-up routines, he talked about the
Vietnam war and attacked American business ethics. His audience
was outraged. Most walked out on him; some remained to heckle
him; a few had to be restrained from rushing the stage. On this night,
George Carlin took the first step toward fulfillingthe "prophecy" that
Bruce, unknown to him, had made.
After the aforementioned incident, Carlin had to start his career
from scratch, playing small clubs and coffee houses, but he scratched
his way to the top. The folk and college audiences loved him. His
attacks on religion, big business, and the Vietnam war made him a
counter culture hero. His dazzling wordplay prompted many critics
to compare him with H.L. Mencken. His albums enjoyed good sales
and he performed before packed houses. Carlin had rebelled against
society and came out ahead for doing so.
The rebel in George Carlin had been there since he was young.
During childhood he grew to despise many of the values his mother
attempted to force upon him. The one he despised the most was
religion. "When the catholics start laying their trip on you, you notice
very early in life what a load of shit it is," said Carlin, who had been
sent to parochial school, in a Playboy interview. "The hypocrisy is just
breathtakingly apparent, even to a child. But what I hated most was
seeing those priests and brothers getting so much pleasure out of
inflicting pain. I wondered what was wrong with them."

would approve.
Religion was also the topic of the cut "God" on his Toledo Window
album, and "Religious Lift" from An Evening With Wally Londo.
Carlin combined the best lines from those two performances for a
monologue he delivered on the premiere episode of Saturday Night
Live in September 1975. The result was not unpredictable. "We even
got cardinal Cooke to call in before the show was over," Carlin
recalled. "I was particularly proud of that." What did Carlin say that
incensed Cooke so? "All I said was that I'd been taught that I was
made in god's image, but it looked more like we had made him in our
image. And ifhe was anything like me, he was far from perfect. Then I""
said I thought the whole idea of god's being perfect was out of the
question. I mean, just look at his work. He can't make two leaves
alike. Every mountain range is crooked. He can't even get two
fingerprints the same .... And about that time. the phones lit up."
Cooke and the other callers should have waited, because Carlin
was just getting warmed up at that point. He went on to talk about
how religion is a way of relieving yourself of any responsibility for your
own acts, and concluded with a stinging analogy which I'm sure sent a
few more religionists scrambling for their telephones. "Religion, at
best, is like a liftin your shoe. Ifyou need it for a while and it makes you
walk straight and feel better, fine. But you don't need it forever or you
can become permanently disabled. Religion is a liftin your shoe, and I
"On the Class Clown album ... Carlin devoted say just don't ask me to wear your shoes and let's not go down and
. nail lifts onto the natives' feet." It's interesting to note that when
half of the second side to ridiculing cathol-. Saturday Night Live was issued in edited form for syndication, that
icism. 'I used to be Irish catholic; now I'm an segment was left on the cutting room floor.
American,' said Carlin, opening a twelve minCarlin was conspicuous by his absence from the entertainment
scene from 1976 to 1981. During that time he was recovering from a
ute session 0f bIasp h emous h umor."
heart attack and was withdrawing from cocaine addiction. He
returned to action with the release of his eighth album A Place For
The catholic church has been the butt of a number of Carlin's
My Stuff. This album featured the hilarious track "Interview With
attacks. On the Class Clown album (famous for the cut "Seven
Jesus." In this piece Carlin plays jesuchrist, who offers a number of
Words You Can Never Say On Television") Carlin devoted half of the historical clarifications. On the authenticity of the new testament:
second side to ridiculing catholicism. "I used to be Irish catholic; now "Some of that gospel stuff never happened at all. It was just made up.
I'm an American," said Carlin, opening a twelve minute session of Luke and Mark used a lot of drugs. Luke was a physician, and he had
blasphemous humor. In his routine the bearded comic discussed
access to drugs. Matthew and John were okay, but Luke and Mark
catholic school discipline, the confessional, the religious conflict would write anything." On raising Lazarus from the dead: "He wasn't
between pain and pleasure ("They were always pushing for pain, and dead, he was hung over." On the apostles: "They smelled a little like
you were always pulling for pleasure."), the changing of church rules bait, but they was a good bunch of guys." On the existence of hell:
("It's no longer a sin to eat meat on Friday, but I'llbet you there's still "Oh yeah, there's a hell. There's also a heck. It's not as severe." On
some guys in hell doing time on a meat rap."), and the concepts of christianity: "I'm a little embarrassed by it. If I had to do it over again,
heaven, hell, purgatory ("As bad as hell but you knew you were going I'd start one of those eastern religions like buddha did. Now buddha
home."), and limbo ("I think when they purged a few of the saints,
was smart. That's why he's laughing. I would never want to be a
they called off limbo, too. I hope they promoted everyone and didn't
member of any group whose symbol is a man nailed onto two pieces
just cut them loose in space.") - none in a manner of which the pope
of wood, especially if it's me. Buddha's laughing; I'm on the cross."
Austin, Texas

May, 1984

Page 31

It's quite evident that Carlin's disdain for religion goes beyond
catholicism to all branches of christianity. "They're all outerdirected," complained the candid comic. " 'Who can I convert?' 'Let's
go to this country and make them christians.' 'Wear this.' 'Do that.'
'No, don't worship that way. Worship this way or I'll killyou - for the
good of your soul, ofcourse.' Christianity is all external, all material.
Gold. War. Murder. The big churches operate, morally and
economically, just like the big corporations. Yet they don't pay taxes.
Let them pay their fair share, those ... religions."
Is Carlin an Atheist? I would not want to give a definite yes on that
question. There is enough ambiguity in his many dissertations on god
that the possibility exists that he may still hold some belief in a
supreme being. Still, all in all, I would say that Carlin is the closest
thing to a bona fide Atheist of all the celebrities whose ideas on
religion I've examined in recent months.
I know that many of you are disappointed, as I am, that there aren't
more public figures who openly embrace Atheism. We must consider,
though, that we are progressing. Twenty years ago, the idea of a
comedian delivering overt antireligious monologues or a musician

singing antireligious songs was unheard of. It is now becoming

conventional. The comedy of George Carlin and the music of the late
John Lennon has exposed atheistic concepts to audiences which may
not have otherwise heard them. Let us not lose sight of the fact that
social evolution takes time. Looking at how the American Atheist
organization has progressed over the last twenty years, and how
society is slowly but surely evolving away from religious dominance, I
am optimistic about the future. I predict that, by the turn of the
century, there will be openly professed Atheists abounding in all
walks of public life.But that can only happen ifAmerican Atheists can
continue to grow and educate. That's where you come in. ~
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
An American Atheist columnist since January 1982, Mr.
Frankel is the director of Central Illinois Atheists. He is also the
voice of his chapter's Dial-An-Atheist as well as editor of the
chapter newsletter. He has no qualms about openly professing
his Atheism in his community.

JOHN THE BAPTIST, MEET ERNIE THE PRESB'ITERIAN.

Page 32

May, 1984

The American Atheist

AMERICAN A THEISM / Madalyn Murray Q'Hair

THE GIDEONS AND OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS

-A
U

r. James Manchack III, a concerned American Atheist

member living in Texas City, Texas, has just sent to the
national office at Austin the following letter:
"My niece goes to Northside Elementary School; she is 10
years old. On Tuesday she brought home the new testament
(enclosed), and said the school gave it to her.
"Is this legal? Ifprayer in school is not tolerated (and I believe
institutionalized prayer in school should not be tolerated), then
how can passing out the new testament be tolerated? Is this not
against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Is
this not indoctrinating our children into religion via the public
schools?
"If this had been my child I would have complained
vigorously. I would have rather had them pass out a book of
less violence, like maybe Scarface, but unfortunately I am not
the child's parents. Sincerely yours."
Enclosed with the letter was a small leatherette-covered new testament, 1983 edition, measuring 3" x 47r, 582 pages, published and
distributed by The Gideons International out of Nashville, Tennessee. Previously the gideons had distributed only the King James
version of the bible. This, however, is the "New International
Version." After the concluding revelations, the text includes two
books of the old testament: psalms and pro verbs. Nowhere is there an
indication for the children that these two chapters are not a part of the
new testament. This particular edition has a frontispiece of a redwhite-and-blue (i.e. full-color) American flag with an old testament
quotation under the flag:
"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to
any people." proverbs 13:34.
The inside cover of the book notes, "This testament is presented in
memory or honor of a friend or loved one through the Gideon Living
Memorial Bible Plan." The first page has a "Presented to" announcement and that niece's name is printed there, with the bottom
of the page indicating that the gift is from Gideon's International.
The gideons know that this is an illegal exercise. The matter was
settled as long ago as 1953 in what is called "the leading case" of
Tudor v. Board of Education of Borough of Rutherford, 14 N.S. 31,
100 A2d 857 (1953) cert. den. 348 u.s. 1816, 75 S. Ct. 25, 00 L.Ed. 2d
644 (1954). This concerned distribution of the gideon bible in the
public schools of Rutherford Borough, New Jersey.
On November 5th, 1951the gideons of Passaic and Bergen County
offered to furnish the gideon bible to each of the children in the
schools of Rutherford from the fifthgrade through high school. At the
time of the proposal, at a meeting of the board of education, a roman
catholic priest and a jewish rabbi opposed the proposition on the
grounds that the gideon's new testament was sectarian (i.e. protes-

Austin, Texas

ta"t, the K;". Jame, ve,,;o") and 'o,b;dde" by the;, ,.1;,;0"' to

roman catholic and jewish children. However, the school board swept
aside the opposition and adopted (with one dissenting vote) a
resolution for distribution. On November 21st, 1951, they sent a letter
to all parents advising that the free gift was available and that the
school board had approved "voluntary" distribution. Parents were
asked to sign a form which would included their child(ren) in the
distribution plan.
On January 14th, 1952 the board was advised by its lawyer that the
distribution was legal. Concerned jewish and roman catholic parents
filed suit asking for a temporary injunction which was granted on
February 19th, 1952. Gideon's International was then permitted to
intervene as a party defendant in the case. After a full hearing the trial
judge found in favor of the school board. The case was appealed to
the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The justices felt compelled to
insert a history of religion in the decision. This survey, which was
trivial at most, took up five pages. But when the court got to the issue,
it was clear: "The charge here is sectarianism." The school board had
permitted distribution of a protestant bible with which both jews and
roman catholics found fault, since neither were acceptable to their
children from the standpoint of their own religious doctrines and
religious books. The court went on:
"By permitting the distribution of the Gideon Bible, has the
board of education established one religious sect in preference
to another?" The Roman Catholic parent had withdrawn from
the public schools so that the action in respect to a Roman
Catholic child had become moot. However, a review of the
testimony at the trial convinces us that the King James version
or Gideon Bible is unacceptable to those of the Jewish faith."
Of course, there is a high concentration of jews in New Jersey and the
Supreme Court of New Jersey did not dare to offend them.
"Nor is there any doubt that the King James version of the
Bible is as unacceptable to Catholics as the Douay version is to
Protestants. According to the testimony in this case the canon
law of the Catholic Church provides that 'Editions of the
original text of the sacred scriptures published by nonCatholics are forbidden ipso jure.' "

"The gideons know that this (passing out

bibles in schools) is an illegal exercise. The
matter was settled as long ago as 1953 in what
is called 'the leading case' of Tudor v. Board of
Education of Borough of Rutherford."
Of course, there is a high concentration of roman catholics in New
Jersey and the Supreme Court of New Jersey did not dare offend
them, either. Further,
"The full force of the violation of both the State and Federal
Constitutions is revealed when we perceive what might happen
if a single school board were besieged by three separate
applications for the distribution of Bibles - one from
Protestants as here, another from Catholics for the distribution
of the Douay Bible, and a third from Jews for the same privilege
for their Bible (the Old Testament).
"We find ... that the Gideon Bible is a sectarian book, and
that the resolution of the defendant board of education to
permit its distribution through the public school system ... was
in violation of the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution, as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amend-

May, 1984

Page 33

ment, and of Article I, paragraph 4, of the New Jersey

Constitution. "
The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court by the board of
education, but a review by that court was denied. This settled the
issue in New Jersey, for the court of last resort in that state was
involved. But the decision really only applied in New Jersey but
nowhere else in the land.
The issue came up next in the early 1970s in Arkansas, this time in a
federal district court, not a state court. The Court in Goodwin v.
Cross County School District, E.D. Ar., 1973,394 F. Supp. 417found
the distribution of the gideon bible to fifth-grade students in the
elementary schools of Cross County, Arkansas was prohibited by the
First Amendment. In reaching this conclusion, the Court placed
primary emphasis on the Tudor findings and noted that the
"...
public school machinery is used to bring about the
distribution of these Bibles to the children ... In the eyes of the
pupils and their parents the board of education has placed its
stamp of approval upon this distribution and, in fact, upon the
Gideon Bible itself.... This is more than mere 'accommodation
to religion.' ... The school's part in this distribution is an active
one and cannot be sustained on the basis of a mere assistance
to religion." (which the U.S. Supreme Court has from time to
time approved)
Of course, while state courts are one thing, the federal courts are
another, and any case which would then have come up would have
had Goodwin for a guide. But, the gideons never quit.
The case of Meltzer v. Board of Education 577 FJd 311, (5th Cir.
1978) banc., cert. den., 439 U.S. 1089,99 S.Ct. 1872,59 L.Ed.2d 56
(1979) makes this clear. In that case parents attending a public school
in Orange County, Florida asked for an injunction against the
distribution of gideon bibles in the school. There were other issues in
the case, but here it is necessary to string through the case focusing
only on the issue of the distribution of gideon bibles. The original case
was brought on October 16th, 1970 - fourteen years ago, three years
before the Goodwin case, supra. It was hard fought and long. The
federal district court denied the temporary injunction on December 4,
1970 but noted that a prior Florida case (from 1960) "could probably
be read to prohibit distribution of Bibles in the schools, Brown v.
Orange County Board of Public Instruction, Fla. App., 128 So. 2d
181." On February 26th, 1971 the parents filed a statement saying that
the activity was continuing and that the board of education's policy
had not changed. On May 24th, 1972 the district court held against
the parents and for the board of education. The parents appealed to
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. On June 5th, 1973
- over a year later - the Fifth Circuit decided that "the record was
deficient" and sent the case back to the district court to find "the
extent of the school system's participation in the distribution of
Gideon Bibles." A hearing was had in the district court on December
4, 1973. A school board witness testified that at a recent board
meeting the gideon camp had again requested the board's permission
to distribute bibles in the schools. This request was tabled by a four to
three vote. The sole reason for tabling the request was to wait for the
new legal opinion of the board of education's legal counsel. He in turn
said he wished to wait for the conclusion of the litigation before issuing
an opinion. However, by this time the decision in the Goodwin casein
federal court in Arkansas had been issued and the lawyer for the
board of education should have made a commitment. The board
testified it would reopen consideration of the gideon appeal when the
litigation reached a conclusion.
The district court entered its final order on January 22,1975 and
decreed that no injunction was needed since there was no imminent
threat or likelihood of further violation of bible distribution. The
parents again appealed to the Fifth Circuit. Other issues were
cluttering the case because the board of education claimed there was
no requisite "case or controversy," the parents had "no standing,"
the parents could not sue the government "which had immunity"
from such suits, etc. The Fifth Circuit found that" ... there is a motion
to resume such Bible distribution tabled, but breathing, on the school
board's agenda waiting only for a pronouncement by this Court (or a

*dictum: a judicial opinion on a point other than the precise issue

involved in determining a case.

May, 1984

The American Atheist

Page 34

lack of any pronouncement); ... ;" and that"

the Bible distribution
w(as) initially adopted by the school board
" There was, therefore,
an issue at hand. The Fifth Circuit noted further:
"The school board only recently barely tabled a motion to
permit renewed distribution of Bibles by the Gideon Camp.
Apparently, the only reason the motion did not pass is that four
of the Board members were cautious enough to wait to act until
they received the advice of their lawyer. Their lawyer, in turn,
was cautious enough to refuse any concrete advice until the
termination of this litigation. It will not suffice, either, to argue
that the strong dictum* in the District Court's most recent
opinion will prevent Bible distribution in the future by this
School Board. The District Court issued the same strong
dictum at the beginning of this litigation, in its very first order in
this case, but that did not prevent the board from considering,
and nearly passing, a resolution which would have allowed
renewed Bible distribution."
The district court further found that
"In the case before us the Gideons have already distributed
thousands of Bibles to public school children in Orange
County. They have used two methods of distribution. In the
first wave of distribution, the Gideons simply walked into
classrooms, asked the children who would like a free Bible, and
passed out the Bibles to the children who raised their hands. In
the second wave of distribution, the Gideons set up a central
Bible distribution point on campus, and students who wanted
Bibles had to walk to the distribution center to get them. In both
methods, however, the distribution took place with the
permission of the school board and the local schools."
The Fifth Circuit, then, on March 11, 1977, found that the
distribution of gideon bibles to public school students violated the
First Amendment, particularly in view of failure of the school board to
make any provision for distribution of any bibles other than the King
James version, or to make provision for parents to have a say in
whether children would receive or not receive the bible. This was
predicated on the finding that the school board had placed "its stamp
of approval upon the Gideon version of the Bible, thus creating an
unconstitutional preference for one religion over another."
The school board appealed. The case was heard again, this time en
bane - i.e. by the fullcourt - in the Fifth Circuit and the decision was
affirmed. The school board then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
for a review of the case, which was denied. The case had taken
exactly eight years from the date of filing. Always, there is a war of
attrition. The state, the city, the county, or the school board uses
taxpayers' funds and does not give a damn how long it takes or how
much it costs, while knuckling under to the demands of the religious
in the community. The person or persons, group or groups, which
undertake to fight these cases must spend years in litigation, often
tens of thousands of dollars on legal fees, and be the object of abuse
even in their homes. Often they are fired from employment. They are
harassed in a continuing, unrelenting way. One must be a little insane
to even undertake a complaint such as this. In this case, we are
certain that the child involved was probably a young adult before the
case termiriated.
The gideons know that it is impermissible for them to hand out
bibles in a little Texas town, or anywhere else. This was settled in the
Tudor case in 1953, the Goodwin case in 1973, and the Meltzer case in
1977.
Now, American Atheists has just received word from the American
Civil Liberties Union's religion counsel in Denver, Colorado that the
ACLU has just filed suits in Idaho, Wyoming and South Dakota to
block the distribution of bibles in the public schools by Gideon
International.
Realistically, what can be done? This is another instance of a
religious organization completely ignoring the laws of the land and
doing what it damn well pleases to do. In the areas governed by the

"service testaments." The bible work of the gideons is allegedly

supported by "free-will" offerings, and it is in the U.S. Treasury's
Cumulative List of Organizations exempt from taxation.
The emblem of the gideons is a two-handled water pitcher from
which comes the flames of a lamp inside, in memory of the bible
account of Gideon's victory over the Midianites in judges vii, old
testament. The name Gideon was taken because Gideon used only a
small band of men dedicated to the service of god to achieve his ends
and the gideon organization was begun with just three.
The gideons are laymen from various evangelical denominations.
Each gideon must be an active member of some local church and the
gideons as an association work in cooperation with all evangelical
churches. The primary object of their endeavor is to "win others to
the Lord Jesus Christ," and they feel the most effective means to do
this is to widely distribute "the word of God."
So let's look at Gideon, his origin and his feats.

courts which have ruled against gideon bible distribution theoretically

gideons cannot and should not be distributing there. However, ifthey
can get away with it, they will. No one will know unless a parent
attempts a law suit and it willonly be when a lawyer researches the
case that he willfind that it has been settled in his geographical area.
But, in an adjacent state there has been no court test and no court
order to cease and desist, so the gideons can place bibles as they
please. They mayor may not accept the decision given by the Fifth
Circuit and cause parents or concerned persons or organizations to
start litigation anew. It willcost ACLU the proverbial fortune to hunt
down each little fire and put it out. The United States is a big country
with many states, many counties, many school boards. The fight
could go on for as long as 200 years before ACLU could win in each
area. The case must ultimately be accepted by the U.S. Supreme
Court to make the decision applicable in all states. But, even with
such a decision local school boards defy U.S. Supreme Court
decisions frequently and with impunity. What is most important here
is that the cases have been decided on "preference for one religion
over another" being unconstitutional and this is really not the ultimate
issue. That is rather: "Is any religion permissible in public schools?"

I:.~-

;,.'--.!;~
""~-';~~~'\
I-~~~ ;~, ?-"
:'\ ...,. ":t
'::=-O;:.~..t'
\ .. )-"..~"<

This takes in the lesser issue of distribution of certain types of

religious literature. The courts attempt to stay away from the ultimate
issue because they are intimidated by the power and the irrational
responses of the religious in our nation to any challenge of their
insanity. As long as Atheists are unwilling, for whatever reason, to
come out of the closet, the religious community can have its say.
There is not a social organization in the country, standing alone,
which will buck the seeming power of religion. This includes the
judiciary, the legislative, the executive branches of government which
are sustained primarily through an election process, and if religion is
in the majoritarian position no elected officialwilldo anything to lose a
vote. School boards, businesses, even social groups such as the Boy
Scouts or Veterans of Foreign Wars, willbow to the power of religion.
CONCLUSION: This is a losing ball game. Either American Atheists
stand up or our principles are subsumed by religion.
And, now a word about the gideons.
*

* * * *

GIDEONS
ndealing with the religious in our nation, unfortunately it is always
necessary to go back to their primary instrument of deceit, the
bible. Gideon's (the Christian Commercial Men's Association of
America) International was conceived by two traveling men,
strangers to each other, who met in a Wisconsin hotel in the fall of
1898. Discovering each other to be christians they held their evening
devotions together. "The Lord impressed upon them the idea of
forming an association of Christian traveling men" and the following
year, bringing in another man, they met in Janesville, Wisconsin on
July 1,1899. There they seized upon the idea of placing bibles in the
hotel rooms of traveling men since the hotel had no bibles in the
rooms for those quartered there. They formed the original organization with the intention of attempting to make such bibles
available and in November, 1908 they began their work of placing
copies of the bible in hotel guest rooms in the United States. On that
date, bibles were placed in the Superior Hotel, Iron Mountain (later
Superior), Montana. The project later became international and by
the 1960s was being effectuated in 80 countries. In the United States it
was extended to include hospitals, penal institutions and schools.
During World War II,the gideons supplied the U.S. armed forces with

Austin, Texas

""'
r~.
~-.r~ .;;.;'
...
. __ .J.,~.
~~... '.:)-.k '~~.;
./-;
::: . 1'&

' ~

~,

"In areas governed by the courts which have

ruled against gideon bible distribution theoretically gideons cannot and should not be distributing there. However, if they can get away
with it, they will."

>

'(;..J~.A
~~ x; ~ \.'!-~'r-

rf ..,~.
,...,'.I

.~. - , ~'..

~Jt<~ /

"~do;.;

-"
-....
L.~

..
'

...

~,

\.A~~:

But, before doing that it is necessary to look at the Midianites

whom he defeated. Midian was a son of Abraham, by Keturah (gen.
25:2). His descendants, all jews, sons of Abraham, lived in Edom, in
the Sinai peninsula. When Moses (allegedly) first fled from Egypt, he
came to live in the land of Midianites (ex. 2:15), met a daughter of one
of the priests, Jethro by name (ex. 2:16), and married the daughter.
Now, when Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt they came
upon the land of Midianites in such number that "they covered the
face of the earth." inum. 22:5). Knowing very well that they were
fellow jews and all related to his wife, Moses - on direct orders from
the lord (num. 31:2) - decided to wage war against them for
lebensraum in this area of Palestine, which really belonged to the
Midianites, the seed of Abraham since the time of Abraham. So
Moses's army slew every adult male of the Midianites, took all of the
women captive along with their little ones, burnt all of their cities,
destroyed the land, and took spoils of all the cattle and goods. So
when they came back with their spoils of war and all of the women
were among the spoils, Moses blew his cork (num. 31:15-19):
"And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the
captains over the thousands, and captains over hundreds,
which came from the battle.
"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women
alive?
" Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the
counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the
matter of Peor and there was a plague among the congregation
of the Lord .
. "Now therefore killevery male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

May, 1984

Page 3S

"But all the women children, that have not known a man by
lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
That, of course, ended the Midianites. They were all dead except
women children who were still so young as to be virgins and who were
all taken by the conquering jews of Moses' for sexual use.
Later, notwithstanding that all the Midianites were dead, "the
children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord: and the Lord
delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years." {Judges 6:1).
While they were thus "sorely oppressed" an angel of the Lord was
running around the countryside having nothing to do and he
happened to sit down under an oak tree near a field where he saw our
hero, Gideon, threshing wheat by the winepress to hide the wheat
from the Midianites. (However, apparently it was o.k. for the
Midianites to see the winepress.)
And, the angel said to Gideon, "The Lord is with thee, thou mighty
man of valeur."
Gideon promptly responded, "Up yours, Bozo. If the Lord is with
us, why in the hell are we having such hard times? We have been
delivered into the hands of the dreaded Midianites."
But the angel, who had suddenly become the lord, replied, "Don't
be fatuous. Have not I sent thee?"
Gideon takes a-good look around and said, "What do you mean,
me? My family is poor and I am the least in my father's house." And,
this strange conversation went on, repeating the drama between
Moses and the lord when Moses didn't want to be the hero either and
offered his brother Aaron to do the dirty work.
But, the lord continued, "Surely I will be with thee."
To which Gideon replied, "I may as well be alone for allthe help that
you've been."
But the lord continued, "Thou shalt smite the Midianites as one
man."
Gideon groaned and said, "You ain't just whistling Dixie. There is
definitely only one of me, because I ain't counting you for nothing.
Show me a sign, buster. Otherwise, I don't believe you."
So the lord said, "Give me a few minutes, smart -ass and I'll be back
with a sign you won't believe."
So Gideon went in (to the grape press apparently) and made ready
a kid goat, unleavened cakes, broth and all the dainties of a good
picnic. He carried them out under that oak tree. Now, the lord has
disappeared and the angel is back and he says, "Take the flesh and
the unleavened cakes, and lay them upon this rock and pour out the
broth." Taking a staff which suddenly appeared in his hand, he
touched the flesh and cakes and "there rose up fire out of the rock,
and consumed the flesh and the unleavened cakes. The the angel of
the Lord departed out of his sight." Gideon, remembering that the
lord, back in the days when he was the lord and was zapping
everyone, had said, "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no
man see me and live." (ex. 33:20), panics. He had forgotten that
someone had said he had seen god's face and was redeemed: ("And
Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to
face, and my life is preserved." gen. 32:30). Gideon promptly started
to shake in his sandals and cried for the oak tree to hear, "Alas, 0
Lord God! for because I have seen an angel of the Lord face to face."
The angel, disgusted, replies, "Quit the whining. Peace be unto
thee; fear not; thou shalt not die."
That night when he was home in his little beddy-bye, the Lord
appeared again to Gideon and told him:
(1) to take his father's bullock, the one that was seven years old (of
course, earlier in the story the Midianites had already robbed this
group of jews of all their cattle, "... and left no sustenance for Israel,
neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass." {Judges 6:4) ) and
(2) to throw down the altar of baal that his father had, and
(3) to cut down the grove that was by it. This means, of course, that
the family were worshippers of baa I up to that point. The jews had
fallen away from their one true god, which they managed to do
altogether quite often in the old testament accounts.
Baal was a god of the Hittites, a god of the Phoenicians, a god of the
Aramaeans, a god in Babylonia. Baal was venerated in Egypt at
Thebes and at Memphis. There was a magnificent temple to him at
Page 36

May, 1984

Tyre. His worship was carried to all the Phoenician colonies. It

consisted of so-called idolatrous worship and as depicted in the old
testament was characterized by human sacrifice, the burning of
incense, violent and ecstatic exercises, ceremonial acts of bowing and
kissing, and the preparing of sacred mystic cakes. It was considered a
heathen worship. Sacred groves of trees were frequently associated
with many of the old gods.
Well, off Gideon goes with ten men of his servants. He feared his
father's household and the men of the city, so he had to do this at
night, not during the day. He cast down the altar of baal, cut down the
grove, took the second bullock of his father, slew and cooked it over a
fire made from the wood of the cut down grove. It was a sneaky rotten
trick. Naturally, the next day the men of the town called on Gideon's
father to bring him out and let them stone him to death, because that
is what the jewish god had decreed should happen to a son
disobedient to his father's religion. (deut. 13:6-10 - "If thy brother,
the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy
bosom, or thy friend which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly,
saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods.' ... Thou shalt not consent
unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shalt thine eye pity him,
neither shalt thou spare him; neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou
shalt surely killhim; thine hand shall be first upon him to put to death,
and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him
with stones that he die.")

However, the father, who was wily, said to all the jews who had
gathered, "Let baal take care of himself. After all, he says he's a god."
Then he patted his son on the head and said, "From now on, I am
calling you Jerrub-baal." Whereupon Gideon blew a trumpet and
asked certain of the tribes to come to him. Moments before they
wanted to kill him for overturning their god, baal; they now flocked to
him.
Meanwhile, he wasn't quite certain that god was god so he decided
to put him to another test.
He said, "If you really can make me a hero, I need to test your
powers where I am. I'm spreading a sheepskin, right here, on my floor.
Tomorrow if the morning dew is on the fleece of the wool but not on
the earth beside it, I can understand that kind of a miracle." Well, he
went to bed and the next morning the fleece was so full of water he
wrung it out and filled up a bowl.
Well, Gideon stillwasn't sure, so he went back to the lord again and
said, "Let not thine anger be hot against me, {Judges 6:39) fella, but
let's try this one more time. Tomorrow morning, I want the wool dry
and ground wet."
So, the lord started to murmur, "Picky, picky, picky." But the next
morning the ground was wet and the fleece was dry and Gideon said,
"That's more like it, god. Now, we're in business. Let's take on the
Midianites.' Now one would not think that the lord would need to go
around like this proving himself to people and taking sides of one
branch of jews against another, first killing off every Midia~iteand
then suddenly and mysteriously resurrecting them in order to put
some other jews in their power. But, who am I to challenge what it
says in the bible when Jerry Falwell says it is inerrant? Well, there
The American Atheist

Gideon was, camped south of the Midianites with everyone he had

called to help in this crisis.
And the lord said, "Jesus Christ! You have overdone it. Look at the
men you've got here. If they all go after the Midianites, they willwin
and then I can't take credit for the victory! These jews willthink they
have done it themselves and they'll say, 'My own hands hath saved
me.''' So the lord conned Gideon and told him to tell everyone ifthey
were afraid, they could leave. Immediately 22,000 left and only 10,000
remained.
So, the lord was standing there with Gideon and he said, "There are
still way too many. We have to put these punks to some kind of test to
get rid of most of them. Bring them down to the water there while I
think of something."
Well, it took a little time to get 10,000 men down to this little creek,
but when they were all assembled, the lord whispered to Gideon,
"Everyone that lappeth of the water with this tongue, as a dog
lappeth, him shalt thou set by himself; ... " (judges 7:5)
Right there Gideon almost blew it for all times. "What on earth do
you mean? Because someone can lap water like a dog doesn't mean
he is any good at soldiering. Are you certain you have all your
marbles?"
Well, the lord got huffy right back and said, "Who do you think
you're talking to?"
But, our man Gideon was no slouch. "I want a god who is playing
with a full deck if we are going to go with this caper," he said.
But the lord was adamant. "By the three hundred men that lapped
willI save you, and deliver the Midianites into thine h'md: and let all
the other people go every man unto his own place." (judges 7:7)
"You're going to pull this off with 300 people?"
"If I don't, they'll think they did it themselves and the lord god is a
jealous god and must have the respect and worship of his stiff-necked
people."
"But the Midianites are sons of Abraham, too."
"Picky, picky, picky," the lord muttered as he went off in a huff.
Well, the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the East
were now in the valley and they were a multitude! "And their camels
were without number, as the sand by the seaside for multitude."
(judges 7:12).
And it was just at this moment that Gideon thought he would make
do with a.little dream interpretation. it was so good that he converted
to judaism on the spot and said to his 300 men, "Arise for the lord hath
delivered into your hand the host of Midian." Wow! did he have a
scheme! He divided the 300 jews into three companies of 100 each
and gave each of them a trumpet and an empty two-handled water
pitcher with a lamp inside. The lord did this because he knew that in
1898some traveling men meeting in a hotel in Wisconsin would need a
symbol and would use those pitchers. No one is quite sure how the
lamps fitted inside, or if they worked, but the lord moves in
inscrutable ways and it is not ours to question him. And, incidentally,
no questions will be entertained as to whence these trumpets,
pitchers and lamps came as the jews sat there with tents pitched
waiting for battle. God is god and it's his business what he is doing, not
yours. Anyway, these 300 jews, who could lap water like dogs,
surrounded the hundreds of thousands of Midianites and the
Amalekites and all of the children of the East, with all of their camels.
Then, they blew their 300 trumpets, broke the 300 water-pitchers
which were in their hands and shouted, "The sword of the Lord, and
of Gideon." Whereupon, the host fled. They all fled. Simultaneously,
they fled. Immediately everyone to whom Gideon sent messages
joined in hot pursuit. Meanwhile, the Midianites and others fled
across the Jordan river, and yet the 300 were the only ones in the
chase scene and no one would help them. In fact, there were specific
refusals to help, even with food, when they were faint from hunger
and weary from lack of rest. So, whether there were always only the
300 or whether there were hosts upon hosts in hot pursuit one cannot
really know. "And the men of Israel gathered themselves together out
of Naphthali, and out of Asher, and out of all Manasseh, and pursued
after the Midianites." (judges 7:23). Somehow in this fiasco, 120,000
men "that had drawn the sword" fell. (The enemy, naturally, not the
Austin, Texas

300 men of Gideon, dummy!) But, there were still 15,000 armed men
of just one faction alone left for Gideon to defeat. So, while he was
camped out waiting to attack them, he decided he didn't like the
attitude of one city which had not come to his aid, so he sneaked back
into the city (Penuel) one night and leveled it and slew all the men who
were in it. Now. if you want to check back a page or two you willsee
that Jacob founded Penuel (see page 36: "And Jacob called the name
of the place Peniel: for I have seen god face to face, and my life is
preserved." - gen. 32:30), so you know this was a jewish town, too.
At this point, "the men of Israel said unto Gideon, Rule thou over
us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son's son also: for thou hast
delivered us from the hand of Midian." (judges 8:24). Actually, the
people were Ishmaelites but that didn't bother Gideon one bit. He
took the ornaments that were on the necks of their camels and
demanded that they give their golden earrings. Of course, ifsomeone
these days wears earrings they are accused of being gays, but
remember this was in the inscrutable times of we-know-not-when.
Anyway, to the victor belongs the earrings and in this case there were
1,700 shekels of gold in addition to the chains on the necks of the
camels. A shekel is thought to have been ~ to 12 ounce of gold. And

Gideon took the gold, and "made an ephod thereof, and put it in his
city, even in Ophrah: and all Israel went thither a whoring after it:
which thing became a snare unto Gideon, and to his house." (judges
9:27). An ephod is a richly embroidered, apronlike vestment having
two shoulder straps and ornamental attachments for securing the
breastplate worn with a waistband by the high priest. But 425 to 850
ounces of gold! Why, that's 34 to 53 pounds!
"Thus was Midian subdued before the children of Israel, so that
they lifted up their heads no more. And the country was in quietness
forty years in the days of Gideon." (judges 9:28)
Oh, another thing - Gideon had 70 sons of his many wives and one
son with a concubine. Since the gideons are traveling men, it's
possible that they named the organization after him because they
wanted to try to see if they could pass that record.
"And it came to pass, as soon as Gideon was dead, that the children
of Israel turned again, and went a whoring after Baalim, and made
Baalberith their God.
"And the children of Israel remembered not the Lord their God,
who had delivered them out of the hands of all their enemies on every
side:
"Neither shewed they kindness to the house of Jerubbaal (namely
Gideon), according to all the goodness which he had shewed unto
Israel." (judges 8:33-35).
With a mess like that you know that biblical scholars are going to
try to clean up the story. And, generally the cleanup goes somewhat
as follows. Gideon is one of the clan listed in hebrews 9:32 who
became "heroes by faith." This doesn't take into account that he had
no faith at all in the lord who kept appearing and of whom he
demanded several "tests" for the lord to prove himself to our hero,
Gideon. He is mentioned nowhere else in the old testament but judges
6-8. There are two accounts of his deeds. In one, yahweh appeared
under a holy tree which was in the possession of Gideon's father and
summoned Gideon to undertake, in dependence on supernatural
direction and help, the work of liberating his country from its long
oppression. Actually there is nothing injudges which would make one
assume that the tree was either holy or in the possession of Gideon's
May, 1984

Page 37

father. The "long oppression" was a period of seven years and the
jews had been placed in that oppression specifically by god for
"having done evil in the sight of the Lord."
According to the second account, Gideon was a great reformer
who was commanded by yahweh to destroy the altar of baal. When he
did so, his father, who was a priest of baal, enjoined his fellow
worshippers not to take up baal's quarrel. He gave a new name to his
son, Jerub-baal, which means "Let baal contend against him."
However, the consensus opinion appears to be that these are actually
the stories of two distinct heroes, Gideon and Jerub-baal and that
they have been fused into one story.
Be that as it may, it is a pathetic story of a man disloyal to the
religion of his father, of wavering faith in a new religion, vindictive of
character, blindly following a ruse to an improbable victory,

plundering and killing not alone the enemy but his own, in no way
exhibiting either brave or heroic achievements or character, setting
up what became a false idol (his giant ephod) thus defying the fourth

"The next time you see a gideon bible in your

hotel room - liberate it."
commandment ("Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image."
- exodus 20:4), and vying with Solomon as a sexual achiever.
The next time you see a gideon bible in your hotel room -liberate
it. There are trash cans outside every hotel. This story can be a model
for no one. Not even one of those crazy christians. ~

MARGE, AFTER THE SERVICE - CAN 'IOU GIVE ME A LIFT TO THE ABORTION CLlNIC~
Page 38

May, 1984

The American Atheist

r
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Editor,
In response to your editorial "Reply to a
Small Town Atheist" (11/83), I too feel
frustrated
that I can't do more to fight
religious ignorance. I'm not an organizer or
a public speaker, and my funds are pretty
much tied up in raising four children. But I
want to do SOMETHING.
On the job, I have the opportunity to talk
to many co- workers about a variety of
subjects. When religion is discussed, I'm not
timid about letting my views be known. I've
found many people that will chuckle at the
absurd utterings of a fanatic, but haven't
really given much thought to their own
beliefs. Or they'll say that religion is not for
them, but if it makes somebody happy, what
harm can it do?
For the interested,
curious, and openminded folks, I offer the excellent material
available only through the American Atheist
Press. My favorite is Pagan Origins of the
Christ Myth. I've had so many takers for this
enlightening little bookletthat I'm now awaiting my third reorder. Pagan Origins entices
the curious to read more Atheist material,
and leaves the "born-again" speechless which is the best they can be. I've given the
Bible Handbook to a friend who has
questioned her religious teachings and has
decided to read the bible. For those who
think religion can do no harm, I've given

of "swearing"
on the bible (American
Atheist, p. 37).
I, too, would like to exercise my right to
affirm, instead of swear, if ever called to
testify in court. Tell me, what are the exact
words I must use to make an affirmation;
how do I phrase an affirmation? Does the
court's "bailiff' "administer" the affirmation
- and I merely say "I do" - or what?
Andrew Vena
Pennsylvania

Andrew,
It isn't a matter of whether one "swears"
or "affirms." In the United States today the
word" affirm" was placed as a substitute for
"swear"
to appease certain religious
groups,
namely the quakers and the
seuenth-day-adventiste, who will "affirm"
but not "swear" - as if there is a difference!
The "oath" or "affirmation" always ends
with the phrase "So help me God," no
matter which one is used.
In the times of Bradlaugh this was not the
usage. But in just a few years his fight, as it
mattered to the United States, had been
perverted.
An Atheist, when asked to testify, should
say - as to the issue of oath taking - "I
understand the laws of perjury and the
pains and penalties attached thereto. I
neither swear nor affirm. Therefore, my
testimony will be under pain and penalty of
perjury, if it be false."
Editor

Friends who went to school in Tennessee

tell me that the law there forbade "teaching
evolution in the school" so their biology
teachers took them out on the front lawn
when the weather was good and taught it
there.
Yes, Texas is bad - but I hear that New
York state decided
not to adopt any
textbook that didn't teach evolution. Texas
doesn't control the nation by a long shot.
Arthur D. Penser
Alabama

Editor,
Regarding
Charles
Orr's
"Knock
Knocks" (1/84, p. 6):
This blatant recognition of gawd, even in a
joke, seems totally out of character
for
American Atheists.
Jim Radebaugh,
New York

Religion As a "Barto Progress.

I recommend
that all other frustrated
Atheists do the same. Perhaps you won't
have the impact on Atheism in this country
that Dr. O'Hair has had, but you will be
doing SOMETHING!
Remember, quitting
the American
Atheist organization
only
helps the religionists.
Cora Wheeler,
Minnesota

Editor,
I read with much interest
and great
admiration Charles Bradlaugh's
stubborn
insistence on making "affirmation" instead
Austin, Texas

Editor,

Twelve years of religious indoctrination

isn't absolutely
determinative.
I'm sure
many personal
accounts
would parallel
mine: I went to catholic schools for several
years, and religious instruction
several
more. To break away from it took two
painful years in which I thought about it
most of my spare time, and I had zero
encouragement
from anyone I knew - but I
know that many others have been able to
travel essentially the same road.
Part of growing up is realizing
how
essentially wrong the "establishment"
is/
can be. Viet Nam and pot used to play this
role, but evolution/creationism
is wellsuited.
A college professor
is sure to
demolish the whole 12 years by saying,
"Yes, that's the fairy story we tell the
children. The facts are ... "
May, 1984

Editor,
Dr. O'Hair once urged Atheists to complain to book publishers
about theology
within textbooks. Recently I wrote Charles
Scribner & Sons to complain about the
incompetent
scholarship on the subject of
"christus" and the "christians"
that exists
with Dr. Michael Grant's
The History of
Rome. Dr. Grant, like authors of most
history books, insisted the belief in "christus" that erupted in Judaea during the first
and second jewish revolts against Rome
pertained solely to Jesus and his nazarene
followers. Yet good scholarship states the
actual belief in "christus" pertains not only
to christian literature, but also to period
jewish apocalypses,
the Dead Sea scrolls,
and to the leader of the second jewish revolt,
Simon ben Koshba.
I wrote on this point to the editor-in-chief,
Charles Scribner. I said I was an Atheist and
asked why Dr. Grant had totally ignored the
good scholarship in this field. Several weeks
Page 39

later, an individual in Washington, DC

responded. He was told, he said, to answer
my letter. He said Dr. Grant had used in
both his books on Jesus and Paul the good
scholarship I cited. He said I could never
question "a scholar." He then stressed my
need to return to "god." He sent me a
twenty- page dissertation he had written. (It
stressed how he had found" god and Jesus"
in a Tennessee jail on a drug bust.) He said
to show this dissertation "to your Atheist
friends."
I hope Dr. O'Hair now sees why very few
Atheists write book publishers much of
anything on this subject. Very frankly, it
does no good!
Henning Fernstrom,
Texas
Henning,
The response you received was probably
due to the fact that one letter was received
from one person.
If you will be so kind as to give us the
name and address of the editor-in-chief to
whom you first wrote, we will be happy to
ask about 50,000 Atheists to write to him
and see if the same kind of reply is received.
What we have emphasized before and
repeat now is that there is hope in numbers,
in union, in strength, in determination, and
in a constant follow-up. A single isolated
protest is the proverbial voice-oi-the-turtieabroad-in-the-Iand.
We have a good infrastructure in the
American Atheists organization:
a strong national office,
50 functioning chapters in 28 states,
a well distributed magazine,
31 outlets for the cable Television
Forum, a Y2-hour, once a week, Television program in the largest cities of the
U.S.
4,160 radio stations which broadcast,
internationally, the American Atheist
Radio Series.
When we all get together on a telephonetree, on a direct assault, on letter writing,
we can make an impression. We must
needs be careful not to compete with the
churches on a particular issue since they
can outwrite and outtelephone us 100,000
to 1. Their budgets, combined, are over
$100 billion a year.
However, if we carefully select targets
and all get together on those targets, we
can make changes here and there.
Editor

Page 40

Editor,
I am writing in response to the letter
written by Robert C. Clark which appeared
on the letters page of the February '84 issue
of the American Atheist, in which he seems
to feel we Atheists put too much emphasis
on religious crimes of the past and not
enough on the more recent crimes of the
communists and others. While I can't speak
for all Atheists I think most of them feel as I
do, that it is necessary at times to refute the
rewritten distortions of historical facts and
christian teachings. As an example, seventy
years ago when I was in the eighth grade, I
read about a European pogrom in which a
large number of jews were killed. I asked a
catholic-educated mentor why they did that.
She said, "It was because the jews had killed
christ." I said, "Christ has been dead for
years; these people didn't do it." She
rationalized and said that a curse had been
put on the jews and would not be lifted until
they accepted Jesus christ as their savior.
I think most Atheists feel as sad as I do
about the slaughtering of people, no matter
who they are, whether communists or any
one-else. However, I feel it is not necessary
for us to use the limited space in our
magazine to decry the "sins" of the Russians
or communists. That is being amply taken
care of, repeated, re-emphasized, and exaggerated by our president, the pundits, the
press, and particularly by the fundamentalist christian broadcasters on TV and
radio.
My antecedents came from Germany. My
name can attest to that, in spite of it being
Anglicized from the original German "Heitzmann." They left for a good reason - they
did not like the compulsory military service
and militarism of the time. So I feel I know a
little something of Germans and their
history.
Mr. Clark's implication that hitlerism, as
he calls it, was a religion is not so; it is a
copout in an effort to shift blame. Hitler was
a catholic and never claimed nazism to be a
separate religion. At that time Germany was
90% christian, mostly luther an or catholic,
and 10% jewish.
So let's face it, Mr. Clark: The christians
starved, mutilated and slaughtered six
million jews by the most heinous and diabolical, scientifically efficient methods of
mass extermination ever devised by the
minds of men, AND THEY DID IT ALL AT
ONE TIME.
I willclose by paraphrasing the old cliche I
heard used by WASPS so many, many
times in referring to Negroes, to wit: "I have
nothing against the christian individual,
some of my best friends - even blood
relatives, two of whom served in the foreign
mission of the mormon church - are
christians. However, I practice what I
preach and do not hesitate to remind them
that the christians slaughtered six million
jews." I think more Atheists should remind
more christians of that fact, in case they
May, 1984

hadn't noticed or have conveniently forgotten it.

Fred Heightsman
Oregon

Editor,
I wish your writers would drop "humankind" and other artificialities that do not
exist in any dictionary. Good English usage
demands that either "mankind" be utilized,
or, if you do not wish to offend the radical
feminists, the word "people" be substituted
instead.
The word "human" comes from "human," meaning "like man." Originally, "hu"
meant "mongol." Humanity, then, a genuine
word, technically refers to people living in
the so-called "Third World," and does not
refer to all the people in the world. The word
"people," coming from the Latin "populous," is the most generic word, referring to
people in the mass, as one would do when
taking a census.
Ifthis is nitpicking on my part, I willaccept
the accusation. Please don't substitute
another silly word like "personkind." You
willjust be laughed at by mature people.
Joy Hill,
Colorado
Joy,
All of our dictionaries say that the word
"human" comes from the Latin "Homo" not from a word meaning "mongol."
Editor

NOTICE
Letters to the Editor must be either
questions or comments of general concern to Atheists or Atheism. Submission should be brief and to-the-point.
Space limitations allow that each letter should be 200 words or (preferably)
less. Please confine your letters to a
single issue only. Mail them to:
American Atheists

P.O. Box 2117

Austin, TX 78768-2117.
Thank you.

The American Atheist

Fruits of Philosophy
~[}{]illrn[1~@ [{[KJ@W[1LJ@[KJITililo@]o
~}J
[fi]@]@]@]O}JDiJ u:AJQ!J[J[J@]}J @O{]@]OIT ~o@)o
~[[W@][[@]

Soranus of Ephesus, Greece, lived during the reigns of Trajan and

Hadrian, a.d. 98 - 138. According to Suidas, Greek lexigrapher, of the
12th or 13th century, Soranus practiced medicine in Alexandria and
subsequently in Rome. He was the chief representative of the school of
physicians known as "methodists," having nothing to do with religion but
rather with the system or "method" constituting the rules of treatment of
disease. He wrote on "The Diseases of Women" and a part of that was his
"Gynaecology." In this he covered the use of abortifacients and of
measures to prevent conception. This is the single complete work on the
subject which has come down to us from antiquity and shows remarkable
fullness of practical knowledge in relation to its subject.
Following Soranus, whom it is very difficult to find in any encyclopedia
or standard book of medical history, the christian church took over and the
subject became, apparently, taboo.
1600 years later, Dr. Charles Knowlton published an independent
treatise on the subject. His is the fullest account, with a discussion not
alone of the medical but of the economic and social aspects of the subject.
He was, in fact, the first physician - in all history - to have done this and
should be viewed as the founder of contraceptive medicine in the US.
In this book Dr. Knowlton gave information which he felt would enable
parents to limit their children to the number which they could educate and
support. He set forth facts in his book, filled it with useful physiological and
scientific information, conveyed it in a chaste and appropriate manner,
was actuated by philanthropic and benevolent motives, published it - and
was immediately arrested. The closing line of the booklet was enough to
condemn him in the mindsof the religious: "A temperate gratification
promotes the secretions, and the appetite for food; calms the restless
passions; induces pleasant sleep; awakens social feeling, and adds a zest
to life which makes one conscious that life is worth preserving."
He not alone made pioneer advances in birth control, but he also never
concealed his heterodoxy in regard both to the bible and to christianity. He
delivered public lectures on theology and Materialism and also frequently
contributed to Abner Kneeland's Boston Investigator journal.
The American Atheist Press has faithfully reproduced the 49-page gem
just as issued by Abner Kneeland. Included with it is the 4-page work of
Soranus, as well as a 6-page essay on Knowlton written by D.M. Bennett.
You will treasure this little booklet as one of the greatest advances of
mankind - fought every inch of the way by the church.

$3.95

FRUITS OF PHILOSOPHY
Texas State Residents

please add 5/n sales tax

TOT AL $,--- __

Send_copies

at $3.95 ea.

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

Name

Address

City
State

Zip

[ ] VISA
Number

[ ] MASTERCARD

Expiration date

Signature

_
Bank No.lLetter

s
..

_
_

Charles Knowlton's Home

Ashfield, Mass.